The Bulletin of National Defence University of Ukraine

  • Home
  • Vol. 21, No. 3, 2026

  • Metacognitive foundations for designing a programme for the targeted development of professional thinking in future border guard officers

  • Received 17.01.2026,
  • Revised 06.05.2026,
  • Accepted 12.06.2026
  • Published 24.06.2026
Download article Download article
Vol. 21, No. 3, 2026
  • supported learning; self-regulation of thinking; psychological conditions; reflective closure; MERIDIAN matrix
  • https://doi.org/10.33099/2617-6858-26-21-3-119-131
  • Pages 119-131

Metacognitive regulation is a psychological resource underpinning the effectiveness of the professional thinking of border guard officers, whose work is carried out under conditions of uncertainty, considerable psychological strain, and time pressure. At the same time, the gap between the development of metacognitive theory and its systematic application to the conceptualisation of existing professional thinking development programmes constitutes a significant theoretical scientific problem. The aim of this article was to substantiate the metacognitive foundations for designing a programme for the targeted development of professional thinking in future border guard officers through a theoretical analysis of its structural and functional components in the light of contemporary concepts of metacognition. The research methods employed included theoretical analysis and synthesis, comparative analysis, and conceptual modelling; the analytical framework was based on the metacognitive triad of “metacognitive knowledge – metacognitive monitoring – metacognitive control”. The programme’s three-block structure (theoretical, practical-developmental, and emotional-reflective blocks) is functionally aligned with the components of the metacognitive triad, while the temporal sequencing of the blocks corresponds to the psychological logic of metacognitive regulation development across three stages of professional training. The system of educational and professional tasks of four types (procedural, communicative, practical, and problem-based) implements the principle of metacognitively supported learning; six psychological conditions for activating metacognitive regulation have been identified, forming a causal pathway within the programme’s implementation process. Six metacognitive foundations for programme design have been formulated, and the MERIDIAN metacognitive matrix for the targeted development of professional thinking in future border guard officers has been constructed. This matrix operationalises the identified metacognitive architecture through parameter-based dimensions and developmental stages. The MERIDIAN matrix is intended as a design tool for lecturers teaching professional-cycle disciplines in higher military educational institutions. The findings are applicable to the design of professional thinking development programmes in higher military educational institutions of other security and law-enforcement agencies

References

  1. Brown, A.L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F.E. Weinert & R.H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates.
  2. Dennis, J.L., & Somerville, M.P. (2023). Supporting thinking about thinking: Examining the metacognition theory-practice gap in higher education. Higher Education, 86, 99-117. doi: 10.1007/s10734-022-00904-x.
  3. Dignath, C., & Veenman, M.V.J. (2021). The role of direct strategy instruction and indirect activation of self-regulated learning: Evidence from classroom observation studies. Educational Psychology Review, 33(2), 489-533. doi: 10.1007/s10648-020-09534-0.
  4. Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 6-25. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2011.538645.
  5. Fedyk, A.O. (2021). Psychological conditions for professional thinking development in future border guard officers. (PhD Dissertation, H.S. Kostiuk Institute of Psychology of the National Academy of Educational Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine).
  6. Fedyuk, A.O. (2020). Psychological mechanisms of learning that facilitate the development of professional thinking. International Journal of Education and Science, 3(1), 18-28. doi: 10.26697/ijes.2020.1.2.
  7. Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.
  8. Fleming, S.M. (2024). Metacognition and confidence: A review and synthesis. Annual Review of Psychology, 75, 241-268. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-022423-032425.
  9. Fono, D., & Zohar, A. (2024). Metacognitive instruction: Central aspects of pre-service and novice in-service teachers’ knowledge and professional development. Professional Development in Education, 51(8), 1766-1789. doi: 10.1080/19415257.2024.2409779.
  10. Gamby, S., & Bauer, C.F. (2022). Beyond “study skills”: A curriculum-embedded framework for metacognitive development in a college chemistry course. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), article number 61. doi: 10.1186/s40594-022-00376-6.
  11. Guo, L. (2022). Using metacognitive prompts to enhance self-regulated learning and learning outcomes: A meta-analysis of experimental studies in computer-based learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(3), 811-832. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12650.
  12. Khachadoorian, A.A., Steen, S.L., & Mackenzie, L.B. (2020). Metacognition and the military student: Pedagogical considerations for teaching senior officers in professional military education. Journal of Military Learning, 4(1), 3-18.
  13. Kuhn, D. (2022). Metacognition matters in many ways. Educational Psychologist, 57(2), 73-86. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1988603.
  14. Lee, H.-H., Liu, G. K.-M., Chen, Y.-C., & Yeh, S.-L. (2024). Exploring quantitative measures in metacognition of emotion. Scientific Reports, 14(1), article number 1990. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-49709-7.
  15. Magno, C. (2010). The role of metacognitive skills in developing critical thinking. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 137-156. doi: 10.1007/s11409-010-9054-4.
  16. Mashbyts, Y.I. (n.d.). Psychological analysis of learning as management of educational activity. Retrieved from https://www.newlearning.org.ua/sites/default/files/praci/zasady/maschbitz_psixanaliz.html.
  17. McLarnon, M.J.W., Rothstein, M.G., & King, G.A. (2021). Resiliency to adversity in military personnel: The role of self-regulation. Military Psychology, 33(2), 104-114. doi: 10.1080/08995605.2021.1897492.
  18. Merkebu, J., Veen, M., Hosseini, S., & Varpio, L. (2024). The case for metacognitive reflection: A theory integrative review with implications for medical education. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 29(4), 1481-1500. doi: 10.1007/s10459-023-10310-2.
  19. Nelson, T.O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 125-173). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60053-5.
  20. Pintrich, P.R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219-225. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3.
  21. Poviakel, N.I. (2004). Self-regulation of professional thinking in the system of professional training of practical psychologists. (Doctoral dissertation, Ukrainian State University of M. Drahomanov, Kyiv, Ukraine).
  22. Reale, C., et al. (2023). Decision-making during high-risk events: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 17(2), 188-212. doi: 10.1177/15553434221147415.
  23. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R.S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460-475. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1994.1033.
  24. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351-371. doi: 10.1007/BF02212307.
  25. Sekel, N.M., et al. (2023). Military tactical adaptive decision making during simulated military operational stress is influenced by personality, resilience, aerobic fitness, and neurocognitive function. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, article number 1102425. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1102425.
  26. Shao, J., Chen, Y., Wei, X., Li, X., & Li, Y. (2023). Effects of regulated learning scaffolding on regulation strategies and academic performance: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, article number 1110086. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1110086.
  27. Smulson, M.L. (2014). Psychological mechanisms in Yu.I. Mashbyts’ concept of learning. Technologies of Intellect Development, 1(6).
  28. Smulson, M.L. (2022). Development of intelligence and subjectivity of a modern specialist. Bulletin of the National Academy of Educational Sciences of Ukraine, 4(2). doi: 10.37472/v.naes.2022.4239.
  29. Stanton, J.D., Sebesta, A.J., & Dunlosky, J. (2021). Fostering metacognition to support student learning and performance. CBE – Life Sciences Education, 20(2), article number fe3. doi: 10.1187/cbe.20-12-0289.
  30. Tuononen, T., Hyytinen, H., Räisänen, M., Hailikari, T., & Parpala, A. (2023). Metacognitive awareness in relation to university students’ learning profiles. Metacognition and Learning, 18, 37-54. doi: 10.1007/s11409-022-09314-x.
  31. Veenman, M.V.J. (2012). Metacognition in science education: Definitions, constituents, and their intricate relation with cognition. In A. Zohar & Y.J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research (pp. 21-36). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-2132-6_2.
  32. Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7.
  33. Zueger, R., Niederhauser, M., Utzinger, C., Annen, H., & Ehlert, U. (2023). Effects of resilience training on mental, emotional, and physical stress outcomes in military officer cadets. Military Psychology, 35(6), 566-576. doi: 10.1080/08995605.2022.2139948.

Submission

 
Flag Counter