Do the learning methods focused on active learning and on teaching for understanding improve the learning strategies of university students? This is the research question that guides our work.

The results here enclosed are derived from a three-year research whose goals are obviously larger[1].

            We understand the active learning and the teaching for understanding as Kember and Leung (2009) do, who interpret the first one as the ability to use a variety of teaching methods and to give the students the opportunity of participating in lectures, and the second one as the ability to help the students to understand the contents of the course, as it is assessed in the SEQ questionnaire (Student Engagement Questionnaire) (Kember & Leung, 2009).

Underlying learning theories in the Bologna process of convergence, defend a university pedagogy focused on learning/learner-centered (student-centered learning, learning paradigm) (Attard, Di Iorio, Geven & Santa, 2010, Biggs, 2005; Kember, 2009; Monereo and Pozo, 2003; Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001).

This model provides professors new teaching and evaluation methods but also demand greater student engagement, which is a key element of the process, and who has to hold an especially active role in it, becoming an autonomous and self-regulated learner (Hannafin, 2012, Machemer & Crawford, 2007).

            This is a model that demands self-regulated learners (Attard et al., 2010).

A self-regulated learner (Pintrich, 2000, Zimmerman, 2002) effectively manages the learning strategies, including cognitive and affective-motivational components of support ("to want"), metacognitive components ("to make decisions and to evaluate") and cognitive components ("to be able to”). These are the three components of the model of Weinstein, Husman and Dierking (2000) -"will", "self-regulation" and "skill"- on which researchers basically agree (Yip, 2012). 

In this context, it is relevant to verify whether, as we suppose, the professors who promote the active learning and who teach for the understanding help the students to improve their learning strategies (motivational, affective, metacognitive, contextual control strategies, information search strategies and information processing strategies). This is the objective that we address in this work.

To pursue this objective we are collecting data from students of three universities in the city of Valencia (Spain).

In our research, we work with professors who use learner-centered methods, which, we think, can help develop active learning and the teaching for understanding and, as a consequence, it can improve the learning strategies in university students

If the results confirm our assumptions, we can offer to other Spanish and European universities relevant data and training proposals of interest.

In addition, there is convincing evidence that learning strategies influence student achievement (Pintrich, 1995; Gargallo, Suárez-Rodríguez & Pérez-Pérez, 2009), and also learning approaches: (Gargallo, 2008; Valle, Gonzalez Cabanach Núñez, Suárez Piñeiro & Rodríguez, 2000), so the interest of this work is clear.

[1] It is the "Learning-centered methodologies at the university. Design, implementation and assessment”, approved by the Spanish Economy and Competitiveness’ Ministry into the National Basic Research Program, 2001 (2013-2015) (Financing Plan E, PGE), directed by Professor Ph.D. Bernardo Gargallo (code EDU2012-32725).

Attard, A., Di Iorio, E., Geven, K. & Santa, R. (2010). Student centered learning. An insight into theory and practice. Bucarest: Partos Timisoara. Biggs, J. (2005). Calidad del aprendizaje universitario. Madrid: Narcea. Gargallo, B., Suárez-Rodríguez, J. M. & Pérez-Pérez, C. (2009). El cuestionario CEVEAPEU. Un instrumento para la evaluación de las estrategias de aprendizaje de los estudiantes universitarios, RELIEVE, 15: 2, 1-31. Hannafin, M. (2012). Student-Centered Learning. In N.M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 3211-3214). Nueva York: Springer. Kember, D. (2009). Promoting student-centred forms of learning across an entire university. Higher Education, 58, 1-13. Kember, D. & Leung, D.Y.P. (2009): Development of a questionnaire for assessing students’ perceptions of the teaching and learning environment and its use in quality assurance. Learning Environ Res, 12, 15-29. Machemer, P.L. & Crawford, P. (2007). Student perceptions of active learning in a large cross-disciplinary classroom. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8 (1), 9-30. Monereo, C. & Pozo, J.I. (2003). La universidad ante la nueva cultura educativa. Enseñar y aprender para la autonomía. Madrid: Síntesis. Pintrich, P.R. (1995). Understanding self-regulated learning, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 63, pp. 3-12. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 451-502). California. Academic Press Samuelowicz, K. & Bain, J.D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and learning, Higher Education, 41, 299-325. Valle, A., González Cabanach, R., Núñez, J., Suárez, J.M., Piñeiro, I. & Rodríguez, S. (2000). Enfoques de aprendizaje en estudiantes universitarios, Psicothema, 12 (3), 368-375. Weinstein, C.E., Husman, J. & Dierking, D. (2002). Self-Regulation Interventions with a focus on learning strategies. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich & M. Zeinder, Handbook of Self-regulation (pp. 727-747). San Diego: Academic Press. Yip, M.C.W. (2012). Learning strategies and self-efficacy as predictors of academic performance: a preliminary study. Quality in Higher Education, 18 (1), 23-34. Zimmerman, B.J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64-70.