Cuyvers2020 Article Self-RegulationOfProfessionalL

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/338642576
Self-Regulation of Professional Learning in the Workplace: a State of the Art

and Future Perspectives
Article in Vocations and Learning · July 2020

DOI: 10.1007/s12186-019-09236-x
CITATIONS READS
13 369
3 authors:
Katrien Cuyvers Piet Van den Bossche

University of Antwerp University of Antwerp
9 PUBLICATIONS 66 CITATIONS 114 PUBLICATIONS 6,726 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Vincent Donche
University of Antwerp
269 PUBLICATIONS 2,865 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
PhD project Self-regulated learning during job-performance View project
Eye read, therefore eye learn? View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Katrien Cuyvers on 31 March 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Vocations and Learning (2020) 13:281–312
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-019-09236-x
ORIGINAL PAPER
Self-Regulation of Professional Learning

in the Workplace: a State of the Art and Future
Perspectives
Katrien Cuyvers 1,2,3 & Piet Van den Bossche 4,5 & Vincent Donche 4
Received: 28 July 2018 / Accepted: 31 October 2019 / Published online: 16 January 2020
# Springer Nature B.V. 2020
Abstract
Much of individual’s learning takes place during job performance, implying that
professionals engage in self-regulated learning (SRL). This study systematically re-
views the current state of the field concerning conceptualisation and operationalisation
within research on self-regulation of professional learning - for which we use the
acronym “SRpL”. Although there is a growing interest for research on SRpL, this
study concludes that the field is still in its infancy; not only is empirical research scarce,
the field also lacks a common theoretical ground in terms of concept. Different
theoretical frameworks are used, which leads to various operationalisations of what is
meant by SRpL. An important concern is related to the transferability of frameworks
developed for educational settings to the workplace. Analyses beyond mainstream
areas, which focus on professionals’ SRL during job performance, are becoming
increasingly important. This study suggests conceptual handles and proposes method-
ologies for future research.
Keywords Self-regulated learning . Professional learning . Workplace . Research synthesis
* Katrien Cuyvers
Katrien.Cuyvers@uantwerpen.be
1
Antwerp School of Education, University of Antwerp, Venusstraat 35, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium
2
Department of Teacher Education, University of Brussels, Pleinlaan 9, 1000 Brussel, Belgium
3
Spaarne Gasthuis, Spaarne Gasthuis Academy, Spaarnepoort 1, 2134 TMHoofddorp,
The Netherlands
4
Faculty of Social Sciences, department of Training and Education Sciences, University of Antwerp,
Sint-Jacobstraat 2, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium
5
Department of Educational Research and Development, School of Business and Economics,
Maastricht University, Tongersestraat 53, 6211 LMMaastricht, The Netherlands
282 K. Cuyvers et al.
Introduction
Much of an individual’s learning after graduation takes place in the workplace during
job performance (Eraut 2000; Hager 2004; Tynjälä 2008). In organisational contexts,
professionals are increasingly expected to respond to changes and solve complex work
problems (Eraut 2000; Hager 2004; Tynjälä 2008). To identify or create learning
opportunities and continually monitor, and attend to their learning needs, employees
must plan and manage their own learning, implying that professionals engage in self-
regulated learning (SRL) (e.g. Billett 2008; Enos et al. 2003; Sitzmann and Ely 2011;
Shinkareva and Benson 2007). From this perspective, a growing need has emerged for
research on self-regulation of professional learning - for which we use the acronym
“SRpL” in this study- focusing on how employees are and become masters of their own
learning processes.
In research in educational settings, SRL is referred to as an active process, structured
as interrelated phases occurring before, during and after learning efforts. Thoughts,
actions, and motivations are strategically controlled and pro-actively and systematically
oriented towards the achievement of personal goals and adaptive responses to environ-
mental demands (Boekaerts and Corno 2005; Boekaerts and Minnaert 1999; Pintrich
2000; Puustinen and Pulkkinen 2001; Zimmerman 2008; Zimmerman and Schunk
2011). Although resulting in a tremendous knowledge base, this research has focused
mainly on SRL in contexts intentionally directed and organised towards learning, and
cycles of processes are developed to adapt responsively and deliberately to better
succeed in a given situation. Contrary to the workplace, in formal educational settings
and work-related training, (Eraut 2000; Nesbit 2012; Sitzmann and Ely 2011), learning
opportunities and frameworks are explicitly pre-defined and the learner himself is less
in control of initiating his learning (Loyens et al. 2008).
However, while the value of self-management and self-regulatory capacities for
learning in the workplace is often emphasised, empirical research examining these key
skills and attitudes in professional contexts is scarce. Further, initial observations of the
current literature show that a diverse range of concepts, such as self-regulated learning
(SRL), self-directed learning (SDL), deliberate practice and intentional informal learn-
ing appear to be used to refer to SRpL (e.g. Ellinger 2004; Gerber et al. 1995; Schulz
and Stamov Rossnagel 2010; van de Wiel et al. 2004; Van Eekelen et al. 2005).
Dinsmore et al. (2008) argue for the importance of precision in the use of terms to
engender sufficiently clear conceptual boundaries in order to be able to engage in
empirical research. This leads to concerns about clarity of meaning, as well as the
necessity for the clear explanation of concepts related to SRpL and how such concepts
relate to each other.
In all, it is clear from the literature that the growing interest in and importance of
SRpL is acknowledged. However, the use of different concepts within the limited but
growing amount of existing research that investigates SRpL in an organisational
context not geared towards learning means that analysis of this topic remains an
important issue. With this review-study, we aim to explore the concept of SRpL as it
has been studied in the existing body of research and describe the current understanding
of SRpL in the present literature. This study offers a meta-level study of the various
theories, methods, analyses, and interpretations of data. This study is, however, in itself,
not based on primary empirical data.
Self-Regulation of Professional Learning in the Workplace: a State... 283
Theoretical Framework
To disentangle the conceptual underpinning of SRpL and to understand where seem-

ingly related concepts converge and diverge, two theoretical perspectives will be
critically used. On the one hand, the theoretical framework of SRL is included, as it
is one of the most dominant theories used to describe regulatory capacities present
when students/workers learn. Here, the close relation of SRL and SDL is included and
reference is made to other related concepts. On the other hand, the theoretical frame-
work of professional learning in the workplace is included to describe and reflect on the
specificities of the workplace as a learning environment, and the potential impact of this
environment on the concept of SRpL. This outline will lead to the formulation of the
research questions central in this study.
Modelling SRL
The extensive investigation of SRL in a broad range of contexts over the past decades,
has led to the development of closely related models (Panadero 2017; Puustinen and
Pulkkinen 2001). All models recognise the intentional goal-oriented nature of SRL,
which is conceptualised as a process progressing in phases in time and involving the
use of different self-regulatory strategies (Järvelä and Hadwin 2013; Puustinen and
Pulkkinen 2001; Panadero 2017). First, SRL is initiated by setting personal goals and
self-regulated learners strategically and pro-actively orient their thoughts, motivations
and actions towards the achievement of those goals and respond adaptively to envi-
ronmental demands and challenges (e.g. Järvelä and Hadwin 2013; Pintrich 2000,
2004; Puustinen and Pulkkinen 2001; Zimmerman and Schunk 2011). By self-
observation and awareness about personal functioning, the current state is compared
with the desired state, referred to as monitoring (Hadwin et al. 2011; Järvelä and
Hadwin 2013; Pintrich 2000; Zimmerman 2002). Accordingly, self-regulated learners
adapt the strategies used, which is referred to as metacognitive control (Hadwin et al.
2011; Winne 2011; Zimmerman 2002). Self-regulated learners reflect upon and judge
their learning and performance, and make attributions whenever necessary (Pintrich
2000; Zimmerman 2002). Although the two most extensively investigated models
within the field of SRL, developed by Pintrich and Zimmerman, define SRL as having
clearly different phases, this clear distinction into phases is not underscored by the
authors of the other models, leading to a lack of conceptual uniformity in the existing
literature. Contrary to the process being delimited into phases, the authors of the
alternative models argue that the process is open and includes recursive phases
(Panadero 2017). Rather than being a time-ordered sequential process, with consecutive
or hierarchical subprocesses, the cyclical nature allows for evaluation and adaptation
during each phase, directing loops back to a former phase (Hadwin et al. 2011;
Sitzmann and Ely 2011; Winne and Hadwin 2008).
Second, SRL requires highly active cognitive and metacognitive learners (Hadwin
et al. 2018). When an individual experiences a lack of knowledge or competence,
behavioural and cognitive engagement and efforts are triggered (Järvelä et al. 2016).
Such efforts also demand active engagement (Winne 2011).
Finally, regulatory processes always derive from triadic reciprocal relations among
conditions, products and learners (Hadwin et al. 2018; Pintrich 2000, 2004). Views on
the social aspects of regulation of learning and the perspective from which it is studied
have shifted over the years (Hadwin and Oshige 2011). The focus of SRL has always
remained on individuals’ regulatory processes (Hadwin et al. 2011). However, contrary
to what the concept might linguistically suggest and SRL is considered to be an internal
process that is self-initiated and depends on personal perseverance, SRL is not just an
individualised form of learning relying on socially isolated methods. Recent research
points to the social and contextual aspects that influence SRL (e.g. Hadwin et al. 2011,
2018; Järvelä and Hadwin 2013; Järvenoja et al. 2015; Zimmerman 2008; Schunk and
Zimmerman 1997). From a socio-cognitive perspective, self-regulatory strategy-use is
individual but always embedded in and influenced by the social context (Järvenoja
et al. 2015). From this perspective, an individual’s available information system is
enlarged by a.o. peers, tutors, parents and technology (Winne 1995). Via modelling,
learners for instance observe significant others and imitatively practise what is seen
(Zimmerman 2000). The thoughts, strategies and behaviours of models are patterned,
thereby implicitly conveying self-regulatory skills (Schunk 1998; Zimmerman 2000;
Schunk and Zimmerman 1997). From a situative perspective on SRL, researchers
consider both individual- and group-level processes to be equally balanced and inter-
dependent, taking place in social and collaborative learning situations (Järvenoja et al.
2015). Recently, three modes of regulation in collaboration have been proposed: SRL,
co-regulated learning (CoRL) and socially-shared regulation of learning (SSRL). In
collaboration, individual SRL involves intentional and strategic individual engagement
in metacognitive processes in the service of a joint task (Hadwin et al. 2018). SRL in
collaboration involves deliberate, strategic and transactive engagement in
metacognitive processes of the group members when acting upon adaptation to a joint
task. CoRL in collaborative learning situations refers to the affordances and constraints
of any kind to either support or thwart SRL and/or SSRL in a joint task, thereby
implying that regulatory processes need to shift or be internalised (Hadwin et al. 2018).
The definition and conception of SDL relates very closely to the concept of
SRL. SDL has been studied mainly in the field of adult education (Ellinger 2004;
Loyens et al. 2008). Similarly to SRL, it is broadly understood as learning in
which the primary responsibility for planning, carrying out, and evaluating the
learning experiences lies with the learners self (Ellinger 2004). Also similar to
SRL, notwithstanding the ‘self’, other helpers and resources may be employed in
SDL (Ellinger 2004). Knowles defined SDL as “a process in which individuals
take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning
needs, formulating goals, identifying human and material resources, choosing and
implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes.”
(Knowles 1975, p.18). Further, a variety of concepts and ideas originating in
different fields and disciplines have also emerged, such as intentional informal
learning (Schulz and Stamov Rossnagel 2010) and deliberate practice (van de
Wiel et al. 2004). Although all these concepts differ and are rooted in different
traditions and contexts, they all link to the concept of SRL.
To conclude, based on the existing theoretical frameworks, key characteristics of
self-regulation of learning are the process and goal-oriented nature, evolving in phases
in which different, interrelated strategies are used, offering feedback about the pro-
gression towards the goals which make the process dynamic. Also, SRL requires active
engagement and is embedded in and influenced by the social context.
In order to explore SRpL, it is essential to first clarify what is meant in this study by
professional learning and the workplace as a learning environment. Therefore, this study
focuses on the characteristics of professional learning and the workplace as a learning
environment that creates occasions for SRpL, as well as the similarities and differences
between those characteristics and the characteristics of SRL in educational settings. These are
outlined in the following section and key characteristics are highlighted and written in bold.
Defining Professional Learning in the Workplace and its Relation to SRL
Professional learning reflects processes of change within the individual whereby prior
competencies are modified and extended. Although professional learning takes place
by involving in a range of activities integrated to a greater or lesser degree in work
itself, professional learning is primarily achieved on the job, integrated entirely in
everyday work experiences, social practices and interactions. Such learning results in
improvement, innovation and/or the adoption of new practices (e.g. Boshuizen et al.
2004; Gruber and Harteis 2010; Harteis and Billett 2008; Littlejohn et al. 2016; Tynjälä
2008). However, work nor engagement in activities and interactions in themselves lead
automatically to professional learning.
In relating SRpL to SRL, scrutinizing the nature of professional learning and the
workplace as a learning environment is needed. First, contrary to learning in educa-
tional settings, professional learning in the workplace is not directly affected by
learning context or learner factors (Tynjälä 2013). Rather, it takes place through the
interpretation of both these factors (Tynjälä 2013). That is, as a learning context, the
workplace offers learning affordances (Billett 2001, 2004). However, how profes-
sionals perceive and subjectively evaluate the working environment and the potential
affordances for learning, helps or hinders them in undertaking learning activities (Bauer
and Gruber 2007; Billett 2001, 2004; Tynjälä 2013). When for example the organisa-
tion of work allows learning, enough time can be set aside, and managers offer support,
learning is encouraged. Similarly, how learners see themselves, their knowledge and
skills, and the perception of the fruitfulness for ascending work leads to seeing
opportunities for learning (Tynjälä 2013). Interpretations of personal learner factors in
combination with the perception and interpretation of the context could lead to the
perception of situations more or less beneficial for learning leading to undertaking or
impeding the use of learning activities. This self-initiated self-evaluation with regard to
learner factors and context factors, in particular with regard to awareness of learning
needs and the recognition of affordances for learning are important for professional
learning. In the literature, a variety of other factors have been discerned as Table 1
shows. Mainstream SRL models view the self-observation of motivational and other
beliefs as metacognitive strategies, but interpretations and self-evaluation of learner and
context factors and the role hereof for SRpL models have hardly been investigated.
Second, in SRL models, reflection is described in the evaluation phase, after a learning
effort has taken place, thereby assessing and appraising the fit between outcome and
standards set (Panadero 2017). Although this reflection can lead to more/new learning and
SRL, reflection from a professional learning perspective is necessary to initiate learning.
Likewise, reflection is called for the individual to become aware of assumptions, see
problems in a new light, and transform daily practices into learning, thereby reshaping
practice (Marsick and Watkins 1990; Tynjälä 2013). How and when reflection is used as a
Table 1 Overview of learner and context factors based on existing literature (Billett 2004; Eraut 2004; Fuller
and Unwin 2004; Hardy, Day, & Steele, 2018; Sambrook, 2006; Tynjälä 2013)
Learners factor Learning context
Prior knowledge & experience Organizational structure

Technical, interpersonal, thinking, & learning skills Organization of work
Aspirations Human resource development
Agency & commitment Expertise of staff
Motivation & enthusiasm Manager support & motivation
Self –confidence & self – understanding Collaborative climate
Life situations & personal background Orientation towards learning and innovations
Cognitive ability Partnerships & networks
Attention & effort Complexity of the tasks
Employment Status Workload
Standing in the workplace Culture & artefacts
Responsibility for learning
metacognitive strategy in SRpL needs to be investigated. Third, analogous to SRL as

characterised in educational settings, all of the metacognitive strategies related to job
performance require active engagement and agentic behaviour. Finally, analogous to
SRL in educational or training settings, workers can intentionally structure learning by
setting learning goals, and effectively monitor their learning progress (Enos et al. 2003;
Schulz and Stamov Rossnagel 2010; Sitzmann and Ely 2011). However, professional
learning is not always deliberate, setting time aside to engage in activities. It can also be
implicit or reactive, that is unconscious with no knowledge about learning, or taking place
when a learning need emerges in everyday work in a situation with little time to think
(Eraut 2004; Tynjälä 2008, 2013). Although this learning occurs spontaneously and
initiated by the learner himself, no structures in terms of learning goals or criteria are
defined by an educator, and learning outcomes are rather unpredictable (e.g. Baert et al.
2011; Eraut 2000; Manuti et al. 2015; Kyndt et al. 2016; Tynjälä 2008). Although for
professional learning in its different forms, occasions for self-regulation can be identified,
the self-regulatory strategy-use in these different forms of professional learning may be
different then SRL in educational settings depending on the level of intentionality of
professional learning.
This Study
Given the current insights, a systematic review of the literature can shed more light on
the issues raised above. We aim to explore and map how core characteristics of SRL
and professional learning are present in the conceptualisation and operationalisation of
SRpL in empirical research. This leads to the question of how SRpL is conceptualised
within research (RQ1). Further, tracing operationalisations allows us to address the
question of how SRpL is empirically measured (RQ2). In this way, we aim to offer a
state of the art of the conceptualisations and operationalisations used in the current
research field. Finally, SRL was initially developed and validated for formal learning
contexts and subsequently used for professional learning in an organisational context
not geared towards learning. Based on the insights of reviewing the existing empirical
research in this field of interest, we aim to critically reflect on the conceptual transfer-
ability and equal applicability of SRL for professional learning in the workplace.
Exploring SRL in the broader field of research it is clear that the process of SRL is
described to be modelled by different strategies. However, besides strategies, also micro-
processes, SRL activities, SRL-components, and SRL-subprocesses are similarly referred to.
In theories on SRL, the labels strategies, activities, micro-processes and subprocesses are
used interchangeably (Margaryan et al. 2013; Siadaty et al. 2016a, b; van de Wiel et al. 2004;
Van Eekelen et al. 2005). It can be argued whether strategies and activities, micro-processes,
and subprocesses are all the same concepts. Because “strategies” are most commonly used
in the existing literature on SRL to refer to for example goal setting, monitoring, and
evaluation, we choose to consistently use SRL-strategies in this manuscript.
Methodology
Search Terms and Literature Search Procedures
A comprehensive search for primary studies was first conducted using a selection of
prominent electronic databases: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC); Web
of Knowledge; Business Source Premier; Social Sciences Citation Index; Academic
Search Elite; Pubmedcentral; and Medline. The original searches for relevant literature
were confined to the period between 1990 and October 2013, since research on SRL
gained importance in the 1990s (Dinsmore et al. 2008). Two follow-up searches - end of
October 2015 and January 2017- were performed. Full-text literature written in English
was scoped and quality was assured by retrieving peer-reviewed journals as a first step.
To systematically retrieve all research reports relevant to SRL of employees in the
workplace, a rigorous strategy was used to conduct a sufficiently exhaustive search,
thereby ensuring the validity and reliability of the synthesis (Aveyard 2014;
Sandelowski and Barroso 2007). ‘Workplace’ and subject terms broadly related to
‘workplace learning’ were identified and used together with a set of person-related terms
as capturing the essence of our review topic of interest for a wide range of contexts. In
sum, 40 separate searches were conducted for each of the electronic databases. All
references were loaded into EndNote and screened for duplicates. Appendix Table 5
provides a detailed overview of the search strategy used and the results.
Inclusion Criteria
To include studies in the synthesis relevant to the review questions, a preliminary

evaluation of all titles and abstracts was conducted using several criteria. Studies
needed to: (a) target SRL in the workplace not supported by any formal curriculum,
thereby not restricting inclusion by concept name; (b) target SRL, solely or in combi-
nation with self-regulation in any other domain, thereby excluding studies targeting
self-regulation in any other domain, such as performance improvement; (c) target
participants as employees in all possible professions at any organisational level; and
(d) empirical research, describing a clear methodology and results section in order to
offer clear insight into the operationalisation, thereby excluding opinions, editorials and
descriptive papers. Studies that did not meet these criteria were eliminated. Studies that
were questioned with regard to these criteria on the basis of title and abstract were
retained for further consideration. This initial evaluation resulted in 350 abstracts of
which full-text articles were then retrieved and evaluated rigorously in light of the
former criteria. With reference to the first two criteria regarding targeted content of
SRL, no restrictions in terms of definitions or frameworks determined the inclusion of
studies; rather, as a selection criterion, we used the discovery of a clear statement in
each article that outlined the authors’ intention to measure regulation of learning.
During the entire process, a log was used to keep track and peer-debriefing sessions
were held with all authors to discuss and confirm inclusion and exclusion of the
literature. In a next step, secondary techniques- citation and author searches and
backward snowballing based on the reference list of retrieved articles- were used to
minimise publication bias and also identify less obvious literature (Aveyard 2014;
Cooper et al. 2009). Using this approach also allowed to retrieve book chapters.
In total, as Fig. 1 indicates, 19 studies were included in this study.
Fig. 1 Flow chart representing inclusion of studies over time

Overview of the Studies in the Review
To provide a concrete overview of the studies and to contextualise the findings

presented in the results section, Appendix Table 6 describes the studies that met
the inclusion criteria with regard to the goal of the study, SRL theory, concep-
tualisation of professional learning, design/method, context, learner and context
factors. The included studies feature employees working in various settings,
including education, finance, information and technology, consultancy and the
industry and energy sector. Context factors, other than social support, include
organisational goals, materials and resources, labour market conditions, oppor-
tunities of job-success, and training climate. Learner factors include educational
level, experience and expertise, and ability and motivation.
Analysis of the Literature
To get to know the literature thoroughly, all original studies that met the
inclusion criteria were read and re-read in a first step. Then, a critical appraisal
of each paper was performed, aiming to obtain first in-depth insights into the
sample produce a comprehensive and clear overview concerning the
methodologies used and operationalisations of SRpL. More specifically, the
main criteria suggested by Aveyard (2014) with regard to the research question,
the methods section, data collection and the findings section were compared
with the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP), a critical appraisal tool
for qualitative and mixed-methods research studies. The initial CASP criteria
were adjusted accordingly and provided a set of main appraisal criteria
(Appendix Table 7) allowing a fine-grained analysis and synthesis of findings
across all primary studies, regardless of the nature of the research methodology
(CASP 2013). Then, content analysis was used to accurately identify and
interpret the data. Therefore, a coding scheme was developed based on theory
and brought to the data (Flick 2006). To code the relevant theoretical elements
and gain insights into which and how core mechanisms of SRL were
conceptualised (RQ1) and operationalised (RQ2) in former research on SRpL,
SRL was taken as a first lens. The professional learning lens was used to also
gain insight into work- and professional learning-specific characteristics that
potentially offer occasions for SRpL. Specifically, since active engagement and
social aspects are characteristics of both SRL and professional learning, this led
to the inclusion of only two “extra” codes specific to professional learning:
“awareness of learning needs”, and “interpretation of learning affordances”. The
first author analysed independently all the included articles. An in-depth vertical
content analysis allowed for a careful scrutinizing, coding and categorizing the
differences and similarities, and the included primary studies were constantly
compared in relation to earlier codes and categories. Tentative categories and
potential differences in interpretation were critically assessed during several
peer-debriefing sessions, thereby increasing the findings’ credibility
(Graneheim and Lundman 2004). Table 2 offers an overview of the main
coding criteria used with reference to the theoretical framework for analysis
and synthesis. In the analysis, a study was marked with yes, or yes implicitly
Table 2 Main coding criteria with reference to the theoretical framework for analysis and synthesizing
based on whether or not a key characteristic of SRL or professional learning

was identified. A study needed to explicitly state that SRL progresses in
phases, to receive a yes for this key characteristic. If a key characteristic was
not explicitly used in the conceptualisation but the characteristic was explained,
this study received a yes implicitly. Exemplary, if goal setting, monitoring, and
reflection was described as subprocesses but the authors did not identify those
as strategies, a yesi was given. If a characteristic is referred to in a distinct
alternative way, this was marked as yesa. For example, if personal initiative and
responsibility was called on, implying active engagement in learning, this was
coded as yesa. In the final step, the findings of the vertical analysis, allowed for
a horizontal creation of a typology of the studies with regard to conceptualisa-
tion. Table 3 (p. 11) and 4 (p. 15) map all the results and distinguish for each
characteristic the results regarding conceptualisation and operationalization.
Results
As our aim is to classify the existing research in terms of conceptualisation (RQ1) and
operationalization (RQ2), the results are organised accordingly.
Conceptualisation
Based on the similarities and differences in key-features of SRL and self-regulated

aspects of professional learning, five types of studies could be distinguished with regard
to the conceptualisation. First, the integrated-type is described, using both core-
characteristics of SRL and self-regulated aspects of professional learning in the con-
ceptualisation. Second, the SRL-type is distinguished, solely taking SRL-features into
Table 3 Overview of representation of key characteristics in the conceptualisation of SRL during job performance
Self-Regulation of Professional Learning in the Workplace: a State...
291
account. A third type of studies, the professional-type, comprises studies mainly using
self-regulated aspects of professional learning. The fourth type or ‘mixed type’, consists
of studies showing many similarities in their conceptualisations regarding both the
theoretical frameworks of SRL and professional learning, complemented with specific
differences between these studies. Finally, studies of the scattered type show very few
commonalities regarding the core characteristics of SRL and professional learning that
can be distinguished. Given this scatteredness, further description is not relevant.
Integrated-type of studies could be distinguished (n = 4). In this group of studies, a
process-oriented perspective on SRL is taken, thereby allocating a central and major
role to goals (Fontana et al. 2015; Littlejohn et al. 2016; Margaryan et al. 2013;
Milligan et al. 2015). Most often in this type studies but also in general in all the
studies included in the sample, Zimmerman’s three-phased model (Zimmerman 2000,
2002) is referred to, which includes a forethought, performance and self-reflection
phase. However, strategies are not always referred to in detail. Although very few
studies in the sample focus on the interrelated and cyclical nature of SRpL, all the
studies of this type do so.
In this type studies, authors point towards the responsibility of individual workers
for planning their work and transforming their work practices (Fontana et al. 2015;
Milligan et al. 2015). Calling on responsibility could be interpreted as expecting active
engagement. However, there might be various ways to take responsibility for learning.
Exemplary, subscribing to formally organised learning could also be a way of taking
responsibility for learning. Doing so, however, does not automatically imply active
engagement with SRpL. Therefore, the question is whether taking responsibility and
active engagement can be interpreted as the same.
Although not referring to different modes of regulation, interactions and engagement
with others in these studies is referred to in the conceptualisations (Hadwin et al. 2018).
The theoretical framework of professional learning in the workplace focuses
on the evaluation of the self and the working environment as self-regulatory
aspects. Studies of the integrated-type take both these self-regulatory aspects of
the professional learning framework into account in the conceptualisation.
Littlejohn et al. (2016) explicitly highlight the “reciprocal process shaped by
the affordances of a specific workplace environment—resources, materials and
people—along with the individual’s ability and motivation to engage with what
is afforded” (Littlejohn et al. 2016, p.208). Regarding awareness of learning
needs, Fontana et al. (2015) state that learners themselves have to take respon-
sibility for their own developmental needs. Again questions raise regarding
what “responsibility” conceptually entails in SRpL and whether awareness and
taking responsibility are the same thing or if awareness of needs comes before
being able to attend to them.
SRL-type (n = 2) studies take into account solely SRL features. In this type of
studies (van de Wiel et al. 2004; Van Eekelen et al. 2005) as in the studies of the
integrated-type, SRpL is conceptualised as a goal-oriented cyclical process. Phases and
strategies are implicitly or explicitly described. Exemplary is the study of van de Wiel
et al.’s (2004), referring to a.o. goal setting, the activation of perceptions and knowl-
edge of the task and the context and the self as strategies that are potentially activated
within the forethought phase. Without explicitly defining those as such, all of these
strategies are termed as such in the theoretical framework of SRL.
Another observation in these studies is that besides recognising explicitly or implic-

itly the necessity for active engagement, significant other people are noted as influential
in the conceptualisations.
Professional learning-type (n = 6) studies, take into account professional learning
characteristics relevant to SRpL in the conceptualisation (Gijbels et al. 2012; Hashim
2008; Joo et al. 2013; Raemdonck et al. 2012a, b, and Raemdonck et al. 2014). These
studies do not describe SRpL as a goal-oriented process recursively proceeding in
different phases of metacognitive strategies. This finding is not so surprising since these
studies (Gijbels et al. 2012; Raemdonck et al. 2012a, b, 2014) use the frameworks of
SDL and SDL orientation, in which SDL orientation is defined as a relatively stable
tendency to take an active and self-starting approach to learning. Although closely
related to regulation of learning, this concept is not understood as a process, but as an
individual characteristic (Gijbels et al. 2012; Raemdonck et al. 2012a, b, 2014). Studies
of this type highlight an active approach to learning, implying active engagement.
However, although studies of this type recognise that professional learning does not
take place in a vacuum and social support is taken into account in the studies, no
reference is made to social aspects of SRL.
Conceptualisations in these studies assign importance to learners active interpreta-
tion of the workplace in terms of interactions and activities afforded. However, the
learner’s awareness of learning needs remains mostly unconsidered in the
conceptualisations of this type, except the study of Joo et al. (2013). In this study,
the effects of developmental needs awareness on civil servants in South Korea are
investigated, stating that employees with a high level of awareness of their develop-
mental needs are able to identify gaps between current and required levels of knowl-
edge, skills and ability. Developmental needs awareness might be interpreted as
learning needs awareness.
Although many similarities regarding both the SRL framework and self-
regulated aspects of professional learning can be found in the mixed-type
(n = 4) of studies, contrary to the integrated-type, some – nuanced - differences
are found too (Schulz and Stamov Rossnagel 2010; Siadaty et al. 2012, 2016a,
b). Exemplary, all of these studies put a central and major role to goals in
initiating and driving SRpL. Regarding the process-oriented nature of SRpL
however, some nuanced differences are found. Namely, the studies of Siadaty
et al. (2012, 2016a, b) explicitly conceptualise SRpL as a dynamic and con-
textual process in which a series of events unfolds during learning episodes. In
Schulz and Stamov Rossnagel’s (2010) study the subprocesses needed to reg-
ulate learning are referred to rather than describing SRpL itself explicitly as a
process proceeding in phases. Also, although this type of studies conceptualises
SRpL as phased, in the Siadaty studies (2012, 2016a, b) no comprehension of
links or feedback loops between the phases and/or strategies are described.
Schulz and Stamov Rossnagel (2010) however describe successful learners to
make adjustments, implying links between strategies, and underpinning the
interrelated cyclical nature of SRpL.
Another observation in the conceptalisations of the mixed-type studies, is that active
engagement is obvious because the Zimmerman models’ perspective on SRL is used,
highlighting active engagement (Siadaty et al. 2012, 2016a, b) or because SRpL is
conceptualised as a form of intentional informal learning (Schulz and Stamov
Rossnagel 2010). Indeed, intentional initiated actions go hand-in-hand with active

engagement and efforts (Ericsson 2004).
Further, a striking finding in this type of studies is that awareness of learning needs
is explicitly considered in the conceptualisation of SRpL. Exemplary, Siadaty et al.
(2012, 2016a, b) state that SRL is a prerequisite to identify and address workers’
learning needs. Finally, social aspects and recognising affordances as self-regulated
aspect of professional learning show diffuse results across the studies.
Operationalisation
In a next step, we analysed how SRpL is operationalised. Table 4 (p 15) visualises the
findings on a detailed level. We describe if and how key features of SRL and self-
regulated aspects of professional learning are taken into account in the studies’
operationalisation of SRpL.
The analysis shows that, although the theoretical framework assumes that learning
proceeds over a short or longer period of time, only Siadaty et al. (2012, 2016a, 2016b)
approach the measurement of SRpL as a process through the use of Learn B, a
technological tool that aims to support and scaffold intentional, non-formal SRL-
strategies. The “progress-o-meter”, a functionality of Learn B, aims to support the
metacognitive monitoring of the learning progression and inform users about their
progress towards their own goal, organisational expectations and social updates
(Siadaty et al. 2016a, b).
Although a central and major role is explicitly allocated to goal setting, analysis
showed that not all studies take the empirical measurement of goals into account.
Further, when goals are measured, both quantitative and qualitative research methods
are used.
Regarding the operationalisation of the phased nature of SRpL and strategies, several
interesting differences were identified. First, not all studies are particularly explicit in
their methodology about attempting to capture the strategies of SRpL. Second, on a
general level professional development activities are focused on (Hashim 2008; Tillema
and Kremer-Hayon 2002) and respondents are asked “how they learn” (Margaryan et al.
2013; Van Eekelen et al. 2005). This overall question does not necessarily lead to
answers related to self-regulatory strategies, but provides the option to report on any
kind of learning activity undertaken. Also, many of the studies actually measure self-
regulatory strategies as outlined in the theoretical framework. Again, quantitative and
qualitative research methods are used to measure strategies within the studies.
Finally, the theoretical framework describes SRL as taking place through co-
occurring metacognitive strategies and feedback allowing adjustment of the process
of learning in time, and referring to an interrelated and cyclical nature of this process of
learning. Although several of the studies included in the sample conceptualise this as
such, a lack of evidence of empirical measurement of both the first and the latter could
be found. This is a remarkable finding.
Besides a process-oriented nature, active engagement and social aspects are require-
ments for SRL according to both theoretical frameworks. Analysis shows that although
almost all of the studies explicitly or implicitly call on active engagement as a necessary
characteristic of SRpL, actual operationalisation is mostly lacking. Exceptions are Butler
et al. (2004), Gijbels et al. (2012) and Raemdonck et al. (2014). However, a nuanced
Table 4 Overview of representation of key characteristics in the operationalisation of SRL during job performance
Process of self-regulated learning Professional learning
Process Goal-oriented Phased Subprocesses Interrelated Cyclical Active engagement Social Affordances Learning needs
Butler et al. 2004 – – – – – – ya – – –

Fontana et al. 2015 – yqn yqn yqn – – – – y –
Gijbels et al. 2012 – – – – – – – – y –
Hashim 2008 – ya ya – – – – – –
Joo et al. 2013 – – – – – – – – yi y
Littlejohn et al. 2016 – yql yql yql – – – y y –
Margaryan et al. 2013 yql – – – – – y – –
Milligan et al. 2015 – yqn yqn yqn – – – – – –
Raemdonck et al. 2014 – – – – – – – – y –
Raemdonck et al. 2012a – – – – – – – – – –
Raemdonck et al. 2012b y
– – – – – – – – –
Schulz and Stamov Rossnagel 2010 – yqn yqn yqn – – – y y –
Siadaty et al. 2012 y yqn yqn yqn – – – – – –
Siadaty et al. 2016a y yqn yqn yqn – – – – – –
Siadaty et al. 2016b y yqn yqn yqn – – – – – –
Tillema and Kremer-Hayon 2002 – – ya y – – – – – –
van der Klink et al. 2012 – – yqn yqn – – – – – –
van de Wiel et al. 2004 – yql yql yql – – – y – –
Van Eekelen et al. 2005 – yql – – – – – – – –
Yes = y-yes but implicitly = yi-yes but alternatively = ya-no = −

Yesqn = quantitave approach – Yes ql = qualitative approach
295
description is needed. The operationalisation in Butler et al. (2004) signals only the
evaluation of ongoing and active reflection but does not make clear how active reflection
is measured. Interpretation of the operationalisation of the active engagement dimension
in Gijbels et al. (2012) and Raemdonck et al. (2014) leads to the job-demands scale. This
scale refers to the amount of physical and mental effort required by the job. However, it
is precisely this reference to the effort requirements of the job instead of the effort
requirements of SDL orientation which is the starting point of both of these studies. This
makes this operationalisation not about active engagement in learning.
Further, diverse operationalisations of the social dimension of SRpL are found.
Questioning the extent of collaboration inherent to the job (Margaryan et al. 2013),
the frequency in which employees work alone or with others to develop solutions to
problems (Milligan et al. 2015), the social role of supervisors (Schulz and Stamov
Rossnagel 2010) and whether participants ask for help from a colleague or an expert
(van de Wiel et al. 2004), reflect the empirical measurement of social aspects. However,
no actual measurement of social aspects of SRL as described in the theoretical
framework can be found. Further, Butler et al. (2004) collect data through using various
sources which combine the Community-of-Practice (COP) framework with the SRL
framework. In this study, teachers are invited to participate in a COP to co-construct
and evaluate instructional innovations to promote students’ SRL. Thereby teacher
learning is investigated. The context of the COP shapes the investigation concerning
teacher learning but again, social aspects of SRpL are not actually measured.
With regard to self-regulated aspects of professional learning in the
operationalisation, the analysis shows that recognition of learning affordances as
feature is found in a minority of the studies. Exemplary, Schulz and Stamov
Rossnagel (2010) use the “Variety of learning requirements” sub-scale of the Learning
Opportunities at Work Scale and respondents are asked to score the item, “My work
allows for consistently learning new things”. Further, two studies show several contra-
dictions in the conceptualisation or the alignment between conceptualisation and
operationalisation. van der Klink et al. (2012) refer to a pro-active personality for
seeking and using available opportunities for learning, thereby recognising a shift in
responsibility from the workplace to the individual. However, the authors also refer to
an increase in the number of initiatives for enhancing opportunities for learning,
underscoring the context support facet instead of the active learner facet. Fontana
et al. (2015) refer to the importance of the identification or creation of learning
opportunities by the learner themselves. However, with the “Workplace learning
context” scale, the authors measure the available opportunities for learning by asking
respondents to score “My job requires me to learn new things”. In this question, it is the
workplace that requires initiative rather than asking the learner to recognise affordances
during job performance.
Actual measurement of awareness of learning needs could be found in only one
study, namely Joo et al. (2013). However, in this study, awareness of learning through
formal programmes is implied, rather than pointing towards SRpL. Remarkably,
although Siadaty et al. (2012, 2016a, 2016b) conceptualise learning needs, the
operationalisation takes into account the learning needs of the organisation rather than
the identification of learning needs by participating workers.
Discussion
Employees are increasingly expected to take responsibility for their own pro-
fessional learning. Thus, the need for self-regulation at the workplace seems
crucial. This study firstly aimed to understand how the core characteristics of
SRL have been approached conceptually in studies focussing on learning in the
workplace, as well as how specific features of professional learning have been
taken into account in this conceptualisation. The second aim of this study was
to understand how aspects of SRL and professional learning were
operationalised. In what follows, the main findings of this state of the art
analysis and the conceptual transferability of SRL are critically reflected upon
and recommendations for future research are formulated.
An important finding with regard to conceptualisation was that, even though
studies are very limited in number, a multitude of different concepts are used,
resulting in a lack of a coherent picture of what actually constitutes SRpL and
presence of the so-called “jingle-jangle fallacy” (Marsh et al. 2003). More specifi-
cally, in relation to the conceptual framework, five types of studies could be
identified. The integrated-type, wherein both the process-oriented focus from an
SRL perspective and the self-regulated aspects of professional learning are in the
forefront. The SRL-type, wherein the studies were fairly consistent with the core
features as described in mainstream models of SRL and focussing mainly on SRpL
from a process-oriented perspective. The professional learning-type mainly focusing
on self-regulated aspects of professional learning in their conceptualisations. A closer
analysis showed that in this type, self-regulation of learning was framed using the
SDL theory. The mixed-type, showing similarities and nuanced differences on both
frameworks used and finally, a scattered-type with mainly inconsistencies in their
conceptualisations regarding key elements of both frameworks. In terms of this
typology of studies, it should be noted that multiple studies of the same authors/
research groups were found in most of the types. This makes the creation of this
typology less surprising. However, since all of the authors have performed multiple
studies, this highlights the scatteredness of the research field regarding the concep-
tualisation of SRpL.
Concerning operationalisations, the analysis obviously demonstrated that
most of the studies hardly translated the key characteristics of SRL and
professional learning into process-oriented measurements. In measuring SRpL
as a process, time was rarely taken into account and metacognitive self-
regulatory strategies were only measured in a few studies. The measurement
of SRpL often resulted in cross-sectional measurement of overall professional
development activities on a more general level using self-report methods out-
side the social and physical context of the workplace.
Looking at the findings regarding both the conceptualisation and the
operationalisation of SRpL from a developmental viewpoint, it is clear that
although explorations began around 2002, different research groups started to
make some systematic efforts from 2012 on. This means that the field has only
been in full development only recently and analogous to the categorization of
Schunk and Greene (2018), all studies are situated in the “period of develop-
ment”, focusing on theory-building and developing instruments to employ in
the research. Regarding the concept of SRpL, we see that the integrated-type of
studies, taking into account both characteristics of SRL and professional learn-
ing appears rather to the end of the latest decennium, while both the studies
which make the SRL-type are situated at the beginning of the decennium of
research. Further, in the conceptualisation of social aspects of SRpL we see that
mainly a socio-cognitive perspective and a socio-cultural perspective have been
taken into account in the included studies. A situative perspective, which from
a developmental point of view, has been explored in the last few years (Hadwin
et al. 2018) has not been conceptualised and operationalised in the studies
included in the analysis. Finally, regarding the operationalisation and thereby
empirical issues, exceptionally the studies of Siadaty et al., performed at the
end of the decennium uses a longitudinal approach, while all the other studies
involved cross-sectional self-report instruments such as questionnaires or inter-
views to determine SRpL. Not one of the studies takes into account the
dynamic and cyclical nature of SRpL whereby the interaction of self-
regulation strategies is being explored and moment-to-moment changes in
self-regulation are measured. Based on the models of Schunk & Greene
(2018) it is clear that the methodologies required to capture this dynamic nature
have been used in educational settings since the 1990s and are being refined
continuously today. Looking at the findings from a developmental point of
view, it is interesting to see that, although the field of SRpL is very young,
small advances in thinking- conceptually and regarding operationalisation- have
been achieved. This systematic review aims to contribute to this. Despite the
often heard call for SRL at the workplace, our state of the art analysis shows
that although it is far too early to propose a specific model for SRpL, building
on our insights we are able to propose several recommendations for future
research. Also, actual measurements of how workers regulate their learning in a
complex and demanding work environment are clearly lacking and the field is
in need of contemporary methodologies which could be broadened with the
enhanced capabilities of technologies. However, herein, major challenges raise.
Regarding the conceptualisation of SRpL, researchers need to investigate
whether the concept of SRL that has been defined and intensively validated
for learning in formal educational settings and training is sufficient to grasp the
full range of self-regulation at the workplace or if adjustments need to be made.
First, based on the typology found in this study and the requirements of the
workplace as a context unstructured for learning, our findings indicate that
neither the framework of SDL nor the framework of SRL in itself sufficiently
provide a valid framework to conceptualise SRpL. Accordingly, it could be
argued that the SRL framework should be extended with strategies specific to
the SDL framework and in line with the self-regulated aspects of professional
learning. Exemplary, identifying learning opportunities is described as a char-
acteristic of SDL (Gijbels et al. 2012; Raemdonck et al. 2014), can be referred
to as a self-regulated aspect of professional learning based on its theoretical
groudings, and therefore should extend the framework of SRL for the purpose
of SRpL. Furthermore, in contrast to learning in educational settings, the
responsibility for detecting and interpreting learning affordances and needs,
and initiating learning during job performance lies with the learner—the
employee. Both these activities represent metacognitive self-regulatory strate-

gies. We suggest labelling both as such and investigate if they can be appended
to the original SRL framework. Empirical research is needed to validate this
hypothesis and to answer the question whether, how and when these potential
strategies occur. Second, as indicated in the theoretical framework, learner and
context factors play an important role in learning-related decisions in work
settings. In relation to these factors, different work-related learning situations
might arise, thereby putting on different requirements on workers and giving
rise to the need for adaptations of the SRL-models. However, since the analysis
showed that these factors and the learning situation in which SRpL has been
measured have been described and studied tenuously, researchers need to take
this up. Indeed, adding different types of learning situations and learner factors
to the equation of research on SRpL, would at first increase the complexity of
the field. However, endeavours for parsimony and a better understanding,
cannot be the reason for transferring and ‘squeezing’ existing SRL-models from
one field into another field. Research acknowledging and investigating SRpL in
it’s true complexity, is first needed for adequate theory-building, before com-
plexity can be reduced and parsimony in different SRpL approaches can be
considered. Third, and nevertheless the aforementioned suggestions, we recom-
mend investigating SRL and its core characteristics for learning in the work-
place thereby operationalising these characteristics and taking up the methodo-
logical recommendations. Indeed, transfer of the model raises a number of
questions with regard to the validity for professional learning in the workplace.
This study also showed that the models of Zimmerman and Pintrich are mainly
used to conceptualise SRpL. Without aiming to provide an exhaustive overview
of the differences among all the existing models on SRL, other models—
Boekaerts, Efklides, Winne and Hadwin, Hadwin, Järvelä and Miller see
Panadero (2017) for an overview—could offer valuable insights into how SRpL
could be conceptualised. Fourth, it is clear that, based on the level of inten-
tionality, deliberate professional learning could possibly be conceptualised and
modelled as SRL validated for contexts structured for learning. However, in the
workplace, professional learning can occur in the middle of activities requiring
fast action. Although workers have very little time, important metacognitive
strategies have to be engaged in, such as interpretation of the situation as a
learning affordance, reflection on past experiences, a choice of strategies and an
evaluation of the effects of actions (Tynjälä 2013). Investigations are needed to
capture if, how and when reactive learning can be self-regulated and if the
current contemporary definition of SRL as being pro-active and intentional is
correct, and the existing models and core features of SRL hold for self-
regulation of reactive professional learning taking place as a response to
succeeding better in a working-situation and by that means learn. Fifth, research
on goal orientation during job performance is needed to obtain insights into the
conceptualisation of SRpL. Indeed, in the workplace, learning occurs during
authentic experiences, responding to challenges of the profession and solving
job-related problems with no structures in terms of learning goals (Eraut 2000;
Nitsche et al. 2011; van de Wiel et al. 2004). Deliberately setting long- and
short-term goals for learning can steer SRpL, but research is needed to
investigate how goal orientation in the middle of action, dealing with routine
and non-routine situations, influences SRL and its previous conceptualisation. Indeed, it
should be investigated whether for example performance goal orientations in the workplace
can lead to deliberative, reactive or implicit SRL, whereby –possibly- a performance goal
orientation could lead to additionally, simultaneous or subsequent, setting learning goals
initiating SRpL. Sixth, keeping in mind different perspectives with regard to dynamic,
process-oriented viewpoints versus stable, trait-oriented nature, we urge researchers to
empirically validate the process-oriented conceptualisation of SRpL. In most studies, SRpL
is measured at a single occasion, with hardly any information provided about its variable
and dynamic nature. Moreover, retrospective self-reports have been used rather than
measurement techniques in situ. Research is needed into how SRpL changes over time
and how self-regulatory strategies interact. Seventh, the finding that self-regulatory strate-
gies are rather poorly investigated and overall (overt) learning activities more often, leads to
a significant need for empirical research on both overt and covert self-regulatory strategies
for professional learning. We suggest that research should shed more light on which and
when actual self-regulatory strategies during job performance can be found to validate and
substantiate the SRL model(s). Eighth, recent insights into the social aspects of SRL in
collaboration showed three modes of SRL in collaboration, namely SRL, CoRL and SSRL.
Social aspects of professional learning in the workplace should be investigated with regard
to their influence on SRpL. Research is needed to validate these recent conceptual findings
for the workplace context and offer insights into the nature of collaboration during job
performance and how the three modes of regulation of learning are present.
Although the various theories of SRL are not uniform and differences are found
regarding the nature of the process and the course of the different phases and strategies
(Panadero 2017), striving for a coherent theory and comprehensive foundation is
important. Thereby, future research should take the aforementioned critical suggestions
into account and establish sufficient grounds to show if and how an adjusted and
tailored model of SRpL has an advantage over mainstream SRL models. However,
these issues create methodological challenges and the field is on the verge of a shift in
the designs and methods used for actual measurement.
In line with the aim of the study and the different theories agreed upon, and in an effort
to contribute to the field, recommendations for future research are suggested, based on
four major challenges. First, to capture the dynamic nature of SRpL, in which patterns of
interacting self-regulatory strategies are related to or followed by other patterns of
interacting self-regulatory strategies, possibly with some delay, we propose incorporating
temporal facets into the design of future research (Roe 2008). A major challenge in this is
grasping the optimal timing for measurement. Indeed, an important question in this matter
is whether self-regulatory strategies successively occur and how quickly SRpL develops
over time. Although obstacles in this matter have been demonstrated (Roe 2008), dynamic
measurements of SRpL are needed. In contemporary research investigating SRL, several
online trace methodologies have been used, such as think aloud, eye tracking, log files,
physiological sensors and so forth (Azevedo et al. 2018). Many types of advanced learning
technologies have also been used to detect and foster SRL processes. However, although
the use of these methodologies and technologies, and the collection of multi-channel data
offer a promising future for research on SRL, such practices also pose major methodo-
logical and practical challenges in terms of their use in real-time authentic learning
situations such as the workplace. From an ethical point of view, research in professional
contexts doesn’t always allow for online trace methodologies such as think aloud. The use
of online technological instruments to measure SRpL also raises concerns regarding the
validity. After all, these instruments support and enhance the use of self-regulatory
strategies, possibly without gaining insights into the use of the same strategies in instances
without support.
Further, there is no doubt that in contemporary workplaces, technology offers great
opportunities to support SRpL. However, we suggest that the use of technology should
take the role of co-regulating professional learning, thereby offering transitional and
flexible support rather than externally regulating learning processes and potentially
making SRpL context and/or technology dependent. Second, and subsequent to the
previous recommendation, as this study has shown, offline self-report measurements
have been used as a primary method for assessing SRpL. However, we need alternative
methods to capture both learning efforts and the corresponding metacognitive self-
regulatory strategies that actually occur during job performance in the complex work-
place context. Online measurements allow for the investigation of self-regulatory
strategies concurrently with performance in situ (Veenman 2011) and offer interesting
opportunities to meet this need, but still face the challenges outlined above. Third,
contrary to what existing research on SRpL might suggest, not all learning activities
can be labelled as self-regulatory strategies. Notwithstanding the necessity for capturing
self-regulatory strategies, the unconscious, implicit nature of many work-related learn-
ing processes (Candy 1991; Eraut et al. 1998; Van Eekelen et al. 2005) again poses
great methodological and practical challenges to research. Finally, current research on
learning has shown that the nature of learning changes when it is removed from the
social and physical context in which it takes place (Järvenoja et al. 2015). This has a
major effect on operationalisation in research on SRpL and, again, merits call for the
use of online instruments.
Based on the challenges noted above, we suggest operationalising SRpL by setting
up a multi-method design to meet several of the needs. In our opinion, multi-method
designs allow researchers to assess SRpL, thereby meeting the theoretical, methodo-
logical and practical challenges. Triangulation of methods could also allow studies to
capture overt and covert self-regulatory strategies, thereby enhancing the external
validity of the measurements. In suggesting multi-method designs, we acknowledge
the possibilities of combining online and offline measurement techniques. Although we
recognise the concerns regarding the use of offline measurements (Veenman 2011;
Wolters and Won 2018), some offline self-report measurements, such as stimulated
recall interviews, allow the use of authentic prompts to ground responses to a specific
context (Wolters and Won 2018). Here, we recommend that the prompts are given as
soon as possible after the learning effort to minimise validity problems caused by
memory failure (Veenman 2011).
Although this study has been carried out very conscientiously, we acknowledge
there are several limitations to this research. First, since published empirical studies
form the sample for analysis, publication bias is among the possible limitations.
Further, a lack of conceptual clarity is one of the main findings of this study. This lack
of conceptual clarity is also a limitation with regard to the search terms. Indeed, current
studies in other more-or-less related research fields may have investigated concepts
related to SRpL but may not have referred to the concept as SRL. Finally, the aim of
this study was to investigate the conceptualisation and operationalisation of the SRpL.
Subconcepts, such as a.o. monitoring and reflection, may have been investigated in
adjacent areas, which possibly limits the findings of this study.
Final Conclusion
Systematically retrieving the articles in three waves showed that, between

October 2013 and October 2017, an almost equal number of empirical studies
were published in comparison with the period between 1990 and October 2013.
This shows that the field of SRpL is progressing at a fast rate. By investigating
the current state of the field with regard to conceptualisation and
operationalisation, it is clear that the existing conceptual models of SRL in
educational settings offer a theoretical basis for regulation of professional
learning in the workplace. However, merely transferring these models leads to
the denial of the singularity of professional learning. It is therefore increasingly
necessary to ascertain conceptual clarity in this field of research and operational
and methodological challenges need to be tackled. This study contributes to the
nascent theoretical groundings of SRpL by increasing insight in the present
conceptual understandings of SRpL and offering innovative suggestions for how
to capture empirically SRpL. In doing so, we have provided future perspectives
for research in this field.
Appendix 1
Table 5 Detailed overview of the search strategy used and the results
Totals per database:

ERIC (n = 12); Web of Science (n = 112); Business Source Premier (n = 1992); Academic Search Elite
(n = 3782);
Pubmed (n = 117); Medline (n = 4)
n
Work-related learning AND self-regulation AND employees 25
OR workers 21
OR physicians 3
OR teachers 10
Continuous career development AND self-regulation AND employees 1
OR workers 1
OR physicians 0
OR teachers 0
Job-related learning AND self-regulation AND employees 13
OR workers 13
OR physicians 1
OR teachers 2
Table 5 (continued)
Totals per database:

ERIC (n = 12); Web of Science (n = 112); Business Source Premier (n = 1992); Academic Search Elite
(n = 3782);
Pubmed (n = 117); Medline (n = 4)
Deliberative learning AND employees 18

OR workers 24
OR physicians 5
OR teachers 5
Reactive learning AND employees 62
OR workers 72
OR physicians 28
OR teachers 13
Professional development AND self-regulation AND employees 788
OR workers 838
OR physicians 478
OR teachers 220
Work-based learning AND self-regulation AND employees 44
OR workers 46
OR physicians 11
OR teachers 13
Workplace learning AND self-regulation AND employees 105
OR workers 116
OR physicians 36
OR teachers 39
Workplace AND self-directed learning AND employees 636
OR workers 688
OR physicians 289
OR teachers 142
Workplace AND self-regulated learning AND employees 146
OR workers 134
OR physicians 48
OR teachers 304
Total after removing all duplicates 3019
Articles excluded at title and abstract review 2671
Articles excluded after full text review 350
Studies included for synthesis 9
304
Appendix 2
Table 6 Overview of the studies with regard to purpose of the study, theory, design/method, context and educational level of the employees
Purpose Theory Design/method Type of learning Sector Contextual factors Learner

situation factors
Butler Examining learning processes SRL: Pintrich Case study design/ Workshop, longitudinal Edu COP –
et al. 2004 & interviews, co-teachingh/planning,
Zimmerman observations, cross-school meetings
document
collection
Fontana Develop a valid reliable measure SRL: Pintrich Survey/ self-report Work-integrated Fin – –
et al. 2015 of self-regulation of learning & questionnaire learning
that could be efficiently deployed Zimmerman
in knowledge work contexts
Gijbels Examine the relation between the SDL Survey/ self-report Work-integrated IT Job demands, job –
et al. 2012 independent variables of a orientation questionnaire learning control & social
self-directed learning orientation, support (Karasek)
job demands, job control and job-
support, and the dependent
variable of work-related learning
behaviour.
Hashim 2008 Investigate what job competencies SDL Mixed-method Work-integrated ? – –
are required for managers and how design/ learning
they are required on their own; self-report ques-
investigate whether or not the tionnaires
managers possess self-directed and open question
learning attributes to be self-directed
learners
Joo et al. 2013 examine the impact of learning goal SDL Survey/ self-report ? Public – –
orientation, developmental needs questionnaire
awareness and self-directed
K. Cuyvers et al.
Table 6 (continued)

situation factors
learning on civil servants’

career satisfaction
Littlejohn Investigating how professionals SRL: Pintrich Qualitative design/ Work-integrated Fin Materials, resources, Ability &
et al. 2016 self-regulate their learning. & Interviews based learning people motivation
Zimmerman on scenario’s
Margaryan identifying professionals’ SRL: Qualitative phase of a Work-integrated I, E – Expertise
et al. 2013 self-regulatory strategies and Zimmerman mixed-method learning
how a number of organizational study/ interviews
factors affect these strategies
Milligan Explore SRL as mediator of the SRL: Pintrich Survey/ self-report Work-integrated Fin Coaching, –
et al. 2015 relationship between the work & questionnaire learning mentoring,
context and learning Zimmerman boundary-crossing
Raemdonck Investigate the influence of the job SDL Survey/ self-report Work-integrated I, E & Job demands, job Educational
et al. 2014 characteristics of the Job-Demand- orientation questionnaire learning Edu control & social level
Control-Support model and SDL support
on Workplace learning (Karasek)

Raemdonck Investigate impact of SDL Survey/ Self-report Work-integrated I, E Labour market Educational
et al. 2012a self-directedness in learning and orientation questionnaire learning conditions, level
career on horizontal opportunities of
and vertical job mobility. job success
Raemdonck Investigate the impact of context on SDL Survey/ Self-report Work-integrated I, E Labour market Educational
et al. 2012b SDL of low-qualified employees orientation questionnaire learning conditions, level
opportunities of
job success
Schulz and Describing whether learning Intentional Survey/ Self-report Not restricted to any Public Training climate, Age
Stamov competence is related to informal questionnaire leanring format job support
Rossnagel successful informal learning learning
2010
SRL@work Oragnisational goals –
305
Table 6 (continued)
306

situation factors
Siadaty Investigate the perception of the Study-scenario’s in Intentional workplace I, E &

et al. 2012 usefulness of various Learn B with learning Edu
functionalities of Learn-B in self-report
performing SRL practices in questionnaires
the workplace
Siadaty Studying the association of the use SRL@work Study-scenario’s in Intentional workplace I, E & – –
et al. 2016a of technological scaffolds with Learn B with learning Edu
micro-level processes of self-report
self-regulated learning. questionnaires
Siadaty Investigate the effect of technological SRL@work Study-scenario’s in Intentional workplace I, E & – –
et al. 2016b scaffolding interventions on Learn B with learning Edu
different processes of self-report
self-regulated learning inthe questionnaires
workplace.
Tillema and Widen the perspective SRL: Qualitative design/ Teacher education Edu – –
Kremer-Hayon of SRL and disclose Zimmerman interviews program
2002 additional perceptions and
attitudes toward SRL
van der Klink Contribute to the understanding of SRL: Qualitative design/ Informal learning Edu – –
et al. 2012 the what, why and how of Zimmerman interviews with activities/integrated
employees’ informal learning quantification with work
experiences. With focus on informal
learning activities, its outcomes
and the factors that influence their
informal learning.
van de Wiel Exploration of deliberate processes Deliberate Qualitative design/ Learning from Cons – Expertise
et al. 2004 to enhance expertise practice & interviews professional
SRL: experience/ work
Boekaerts, intergrated
learning
K. Cuyvers et al.
Table 6 (continued)

situation factors
Pintrich &
Zimmerman
Van Eekelen Empirically characterize the learning SRL: Phenomenology/ Learning from experience/ Edu – Experience
et al. 2005 events of experienced HE teachers Zimmerman interviews & work-related learning
and how they regulate their learning & Schunk electronic diaries processes
Edu = education – Fin = finance –
I&E = industry & energy –
Cons = consultancy
H = high, tertiary level – M = medium,
upper secondary no tertiary – L = low,
upper secondary
307
Appendix 3
Table 7 Main appraisal criteria methodological approaches
•clear statement of the aim

•phenomenon of interest
•methodology used
•research design
•method/techniques
•recruitment strategy
•participants
•setting
•context and geography
•data collection
•relationship researcher- participants
•ethical issues
•data analysis
•findings
•voices of participants (only for qualitative research)
References
(References marked with an * were included as part of the synthesis)
Aveyard, H. (2014). Doing a literature review in health and social care. A practical guide. Berkshire: Open
University Press.
Azevedo, R., Taub, M., & Mudrick, N. V. (2018). Understanding and reasoning about real-time cognitive,
affective, and metacognitive processes to foster self-regulation with advanced learning technologies. In D.
H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd ed.).
New York: Routledge.
Baert, H., De Witte, K, Govaerts, N., & Sterck, G. (2011). Werk maken van leren. Strategisch VTO-beleid in
organisaties. Antwerpen-Apeldoorn: Garant.
Bauer, J., & Gruber, H. (2007). Workplace changes and workplace learning: Advantages of an educational
micro perspective. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26(6), 675–688. https://doi.org/10.1080
/02601370701711364.
Billett, S. (2001). Learning through work: Workplace affordances and individual engagement. Journal of
Workplace Learning, 13(5), 209–214.
Billett, S. (2004). Workplace participatory practices: Conceptualising workplaces as learning environments.
Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(6), 306–324.
Billett, S. (2008). Emerging perspectives on workplace learning. In S. Billett, C. Harteis, & A. Eteläpelto
(Eds.), Emerging perspectives on learning through work (pp1–15). Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publisher.
Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and
intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 199–231.
Boekaerts, M., & Minnaert, A. (1999). Self-regulation with respect to informal learning. International Journal
of Educational Research, 31, 533–544.
Boshuizen, H. P. A., Bromme, R., & Gruber, H. (2004). (2004) Professional Learning: Gaps and Transitions
on the Way From Novice to Expert. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
*Butler, D.L., Lauscher, H.N., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and self-regulation
in teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 435–455.
Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning, a comprehensive guide to theory and practice. The
Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. San Franscisco- Oxford: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
CASP (2013). Qualitative research checklist: 10 Questions to help you make sense of qualitative research.
Retrieved from http://www.casp-uk.net/find-appraise-act/appraising-the-evidence/
Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual Lens on metacognition,
self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychological Review, 20, 391–409.
Ellinger, A. D. (2004). The concept of self-directed learning and its implications for human resource
development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, 158–177.
Enos, M. D., Kehrhahn, M. T., & Bell, A. (2003). Informal learning and the transfer of learning: How
managers develop proficiency. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(4), 369–387.
Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 70, 113–136.
Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 247–273.
Eraut, M., Alderton, J., Cole, G., & Senker, P. (1998). Learning from other people at work. In F. Coffield (Ed.),
Learning at work (pp. 37–48). Bristol: Policy Press.
Ericsson, K. A. (2004). Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in
medicine and related domains. Academic Medicine, 79(10), S1–S12.
Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.
*Fontana, R.P., Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (2015). Measuring self-regulated learning in the
workplace. International Journal of Training and Development, 19 (1), 32–52.
Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (2004). Expansive learning environment: integrating organizational and personal
development. In Fuller, A., & Munro, A. (Eds.). Workplace learning in Context (pp.126–144). London:
Routledge.
Gerber, R., Lankshear, C., Larsson, S., & Svensson, L. (1995). Self-directed learning in a work context.
Education & Training, 37(8), 26–33.
*Gijbels, D., Raemdonck, I., Vervecken, D., & Van Herck, J. (2012). Understanding work-related learning:
The case of ICT workers. Journal of Workplace Learning, 24(6), 416–429.
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts,
procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24, 105–112.
Gruber, H., & Harteis, C. (2010). Researching workplace learning in Europe. In M. Malloch, L. Cairns, K.
Evans, & B. O’Connor (Eds.), The Sage handbook of workplace learning (pp. 191–200). Los Angeles:
SAGE.
Hadwin, A. F., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, Coregulation, and socially shared regulation: Exploring
perspectives of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers College Record, 113, 240–264.
Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially-shared regulation of
learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and
performance (pp. 65–84). New York: Routledge.
Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2018). Self-regulation, co-regulation, and shared regulation in
collaborative learning environments. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation
of learning and performance (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Hager, P. (2004). Lifelong learning in the workplace? Challenges and issues. Journal of Workplace Learning,
16(1/2), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620410521486.
Hardy, J.H., Day, E.A., & Steele, L.M. (2018). Interrelationships among self-regulated learning processes:
toward a dynamic process-based model of self-regulated learning. Journal of Management. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0149206318780440
Harteis, C., & Billett, S. (2008). The workplace as learning environment: Introduction. International Journal
of Educational Research, 47, 209–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2008.07.002.
*Hashim, J. (2008). Competencies acquisition through self-directed learning among Malaysian managers.
Journal of Workplace Learning, 20(4), 259–271.
Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New Frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist,
48(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.748006.
Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Isohätälä, J., & Sobocinski, M. (2016). How do types of interaction
and phases of self-regulated learning set a stage for collaborative engagement? Learning and Instruction,
43, 39–51 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.005.
Järvenoja, H., Järvelä, S., & Malmberg, J. (2015). Understanding regulated learning in Situative and
contextual frameworks. Educational Psychologist, 50(3), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1080
/00461520.2015.1075400.
*Joo, B-K., Park, S., & Oh, J.R. (2013). The effects of learning goal orientation, developmental needs
awareness and self-directed learning on career satisfaction in the Korean public sector. Human
Resource Development International, 16 (3), 313–329.
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. New-York: Association
Press.
Kyndt, E., Gijbels, D., Grosemans, I., & Donche, V. (2016). Teachers’ everyday professional development:
Mapping informal learning activities, antecedents and learning outcomes. Review of Educational
Research, 86(4), 1111–1150.
*Littlejohn, A., Milligan, C., Fontana, P.R., & Margaryan, A. (2016). Professional learning through everyday
work: How finance professionals self-regulate their learning. Vocations and Learning, 9, 207–226. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-015-9144-1.
Loyens, S. M. M., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2008). Self-directed learning in problem-based learning
and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 411–427.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9082-7.
Manuti, A., Pastore, S., Scardigno, A. F., Giancaspro, M. L., & Morciano, D. (2015). Formal and informal
learning in the workplace: A literature review. International Journal of Training & Development, 19(1),
1–17.
*Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Milligan, C. (2013). Self-regulated learning in the workplace: Strategies and
factors in the attainment of learning goals. International Journal of Training and Development 17(4), 245–
259.
Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., Hinkley, J. W., & Debus, R. L. (2003). Evaluation of the big-two-factor theory of
academic motivation orientations: An evaluation of jingle-jangle fallacies. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 38, 189–224. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3802_3.
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1990). Informal and incidental learning in the workplace. London:
Routledge.
*Milligan, C., Fontana, R.P., Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (2015). Self-regulated learning behavior in the
finance industry. Journal of Workplace Learning, 27 (5), 387–402.
Nesbit, P.L. (2012). The role of self-reflection, emotional management of feedback, and self-regulation
processes in self-directed leadership development. Human Resource Development Review, 11(2), 203-
226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11771/1534484312439196.
Nitsche, S., Dickhäuser, O., Fasching, M. S., & Dresel, M. (2011). Rethinking teachers’ goal orientations:
Conceptual and methodological enhancements. Learning and Instruction, 21, 574–586. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.12.001.
Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research.
Frontiers in Psychology, 8(422). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts & P. R. Pintrich
(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego: Academic Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college
students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385–407.
Puustinen, M., & Pulkkinen, L. (2001). Models of self-regulated learning: A review. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 45(3), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830120074206.
*Raemdonck, I., Tillema, H., de Grip, A., Valcke, M., & Segers, M. (2012a). Does self-directedness in
learning and careers predict the employability of low-qualified employees? Vocations and Learning, 5,
137–151. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-011-9072-7.
Raemdonck, I., van der Leeden, R., Valcke, M., Segers, M., & Thijssen, J. (2012b). Predictors of self-directed
learning for low-qualified employees: A multi-level analysis. European Journal of Training and
Development, 36(6), 572–591.
*Raemdonck, I., Gijbels, D., & van Groen, W. (2014). The influence of job characteristics and self-directed
learning orientation on workplace learning. International Journal of Training and Development, 18(3),
188–203.
Roe, R. A. (2008). Time in applied psychology: The study of “what happens” rather than “what is”. European
Psychologist, 13(1), 37–52.
Sambrook, S. (2006). Developing a model of factors influencing work-related learning: findings from two
research projects. In J. N. Streumer (Ed.), Work-related learning (pp. 95–125). Dordrecht: Springer.
Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research (p. 2007). New York:
Springer.
*Schulz, M., & Stamov Rossnagel, C. (2010). Informal workplace learning: An exploration of age differences
in learning competence. Learning and Instruction, 20, 383–399.
Schunk, D. H. (1998). Teaching elementary students to self-regulate practice of mathematical skills with
modeling. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-
reflective practice (pp. 137–159). New York: Guilford Publications.
Schunk, D.H., & Greene, J.A. (2018). Historical, contemporary, and future perspectives on self-regulated
learning and performance. In Schunk, D.H., & Greene, J.A. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of
learning and performance (2nd ed.) (pp.1-17). New-York/ Oxon: Routledge.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educational
Psychology, 32, 195–208.
Shinkareva, O. N., & Benson, A. D. (2007). The relationship between adult students’ instructional technology
competency and self-directed learning ability in an online course. Human Resource Development
International, 10(4), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860701723737.
*Siadaty, M., Gasevic, D., Jovanovic, J., Pata, K., Milikic, N., Holocher-Ertl, T., Jeremic, Z., Ali, L.,
Giljanovic, A., & Hatala, M. (2012). Self-regulated workplace learning: A pedagogical framework and
semantic web-based environment. Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 75–88.
*Siadaty, M., Gasevic, D., & Hatala, M. (2016a). Associations between technological scaffolding and micro-
level processes of self-regulated learning: A workplace study. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1007–
1019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.035.
*Siadaty, M., Gasevic, D., & Hatala, M. (2016b). Measuring the impact of technological scaffolding
interventions on micro-level processes of self-regulated workplace learning. Computers in Human
Behavior, 59, 469–482.
Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and
educational attainment: What we know and where we need to go. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 421–442.
*Tillema, H.H., & Kremer-Hayon, L. (2002). “Practicing what we preach”-teacher educators’ dilemmas in
promoting self-regulated learning: A cross comparison. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 593–607.
Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 130–154.
Tynjälä, P. (2013). Toward a 3-P model of workplace learning: A literature review. Vocations and Learning,
6(2), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-012-9091-z.
*van de Wiel, M. W. J., Szegedi, K. H. P., & Weggeman, M. C. D. P. (2004). Professional learning: Deliberate
attempts at developing expertise. In H. P. A. Boshuizen, R. Bromme, & H. Gruber (Eds.), Professional
Learning: Gaps and transitions on the way from novice to expert (pp. 181–206). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
van der Klink, M., Boon, J., & Schlusmans, K. (2012). All by myself. Research into Employees’ informal
learning experiences. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 12, 77–
91.
*Van Eekelen, I.M., Boshuizen, H.P.A., & Vermunt, J.D. (2005). Self-regulation in higher education teacher
learning. Higher Education, 50, 447–471.
Veenman, M. V. J. (2011). Alternative assessment of strategy use with self-report instruments: A discussion.
Metacognition and Learning, 6, 205–2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9080-x.
Winne, P. H. (1995). Self-regulation is ubiquitous but its forms vary with knowledge. Educational
Psychologist, 30(4), 223}228.
Winne, P. H. (2011). A cognitive and metacognitive analysis of self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman &
D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 15–32). New York
and London: Routledge.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk,
B. J. Zimmerman, & B.J. (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applica-
tions (pp. 297–314). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wolters, C. A., & Won, S. (2018). Validity and the use of self-report questionnaires to assess self-regulated
learning. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and perfor-
mance (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts & P. R.
Pintrich (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–
70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodolog-
ical developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 166–183.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312909.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. New
York: Routledge.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Katrien Cuyvers is Doctor in Educational Sciences and is working as a guest professor “Didactics in Health
Sciences Education” and as a post-doctoral teaching assistant for “Methodological seminars” at the University
of Antwerp, Belgium (Antwerp School of Education). She is also working as a guest professor “Didactics in
Health Sciences Education” at the University of Brussels, Belgium (Department of Teacher Education), and as
a post-doctoral researcher “Learn@work” at the Spaarne Gasthuis, The Netherlands. Her research focuses on
self-regulation of learning in the workplace in general and more specifically on Self-Regulated Learning
in healthcare.
Piet Van den Bossche is Professor ‘Learning in Organisations’ at the University of Antwerp (Faculty of Social
Sciences) and Associate professor at Maastricht University (School of Business & Economics). His research
activities are centered around issues of learning and cognition in teams and collaborative environments, both in
educational and organizational contexts. Both the individual and the team-level are respectively taken as unit
of analysis. He acts as chair of the department Training and Education Sciences. Also, he is elected member of
the executive committee of the European Association of Research on Learning & Instruction (EARLI). He
was founding Chief editor of the book series ‘Advances in Business Education and Training’ and Associate
editor of ‘Educational Research Review’.
Vincent Donche is associate professor at the Department of Training and Education Sciences of the Faculty of
Social Sciences at the University of Antwerp, Belgium. Within the research group EduBROn, he conducts
research in the domain of learning and instruction, higher education and educational measurement.
View publication stats

Cuyvers2020 Article Self-RegulationOfProfessionalL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cuyvers2020 Article Self-RegulationOfProfessionalL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Self-Regulation of Professional Learning in the Workplace: a State of the Art

Article in Vocations and Learning · July 2020

Katrien Cuyvers Piet Van den Bossche

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

PhD project Self-regulated learning during job-performance View project

Eye read, therefore eye learn? View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Self-Regulation of Professional Learning

Keywords Self-regulated learning . Professional learning . Workplace . Research synthesis

To disentangle the conceptual underpinning of SRpL and to understand where seem-

Defining Professional Learning in the Workplace and its Relation to SRL

Learners factor Learning context

Prior knowledge & experience Organizational structure

metacognitive strategy in SRpL needs to be investigated. Third, analogous to SRL as

Search Terms and Literature Search Procedures

To include studies in the synthesis relevant to the review questions, a preliminary

Fig. 1 Flow chart representing inclusion of studies over time

Overview of the Studies in the Review

To provide a concrete overview of the studies and to contextualise the findings

Analysis of the Literature

based on whether or not a key characteristic of SRL or professional learning

Based on the similarities and differences in key-features of SRL and self-regulated

Another observation in these studies is that besides recognising explicitly or implic-

Rossnagel 2010). Indeed, intentional initiated actions go hand-in-hand with active

Process of self-regulated learning Professional learning

Butler et al. 2004 – – – – – – ya – – –

Yes = y-yes but implicitly = yi-yes but alternatively = ya-no = −

employee. Both these activities represent metacognitive self-regulatory strate-

Systematically retrieving the articles in three waves showed that, between

Totals per database:

Totals per database:

Deliberative learning AND employees 18

Purpose Theory Design/method Type of learning Sector Contextual factors Learner

Purpose Theory Design/method Type of learning Sector Contextual factors Learner

learning on civil servants’

on Workplace learning (Karasek)

Purpose Theory Design/method Type of learning Sector Contextual factors Learner

Siadaty Investigate the perception of the Study-scenario’s in Intentional workplace I, E &

Purpose Theory Design/method Type of learning Sector Contextual factors Learner

Table 7 Main appraisal criteria methodological approaches

•clear statement of the aim

(References marked with an * were included as part of the synthesis)

View publication stats

You might also like