The results here enclosed are derived from a three-year research project.[1]

Learning to learn (LTL) is a key competence for lifelong learning, proposed by the European Union (EU) for the education systems of the member states (EU, 2006, 2018).

The theoretical basis of this competence comes mainly from two chief research lines in the scientific literature:  the ‘Strategic Learning’ construct (SL) (Weinsten, 1988) and the ‘Self-Regulated Learning’ construct (SRL) (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2002).  Both of them emphasize the active involvement of the learner in his own learning process, through the management of this process. The first line is supported by the cognitive theory (information processing theory) and the second by the social-cognitive theory.

In the first one, the learner seems to be an individual subject facing his learning, isolated from the others to some extent. However, in the second it is a person who learns with other people while sharing a context, as understood from the situated cognition approach (Thoutenhoofd & Pirrie, 2013).

Typically, three dimensions have been included in learning to learn: cognitive (skills, strategies and techniques related to information processing), metacognitive (awareness and management in the learning processes) and affective-motivational (motivation, attitudes, etc.) (Hoskins & Fredriksson, 2008).

There is a forth, social dimension, which was included more recently –since latter 90s–, but only in some models, closer to the social-cognitive theory (Thoutenhoofd & Pirrie, 2013). This dimension is related to learning with others, in context. These ideas clearly influenced the current proposal of the EU (2018), who renamed the competence as ‘personal, social and learning competence’.

Nonetheless and despite an important tradition of research on learning to learn, there is no agreement by the scientific community on a theoretical model about this competence. It seems to be difficult, if not impossible, to teach and assess the management of this competence without a theoretical agreement. For this reason, our research problem is to set a theoretical model for making tractable this competence in the education systems.

In Europe some important researches have been developed with this purpose, because it is necessary to achieve a European model to follow the recommendations of the EU.

Hautamäki et al. (2002) tried to find a framework for evaluation from the Center for Educational Assessment of the University of Helsinki. They defined this competence and established dimensions and subdimensions.

Hoskins & Fredriksson (2008) directed a research in the CRELL (the Center for Research on Education and Lifelong Learning, EU). Although designed an instrument to assess the competence with three dimensions –affective, cognitive and metacognitive– along with experts from several teams around the UE, they did not get an agreement for a common European indicator. Stringher (2014) tried also to elaborate a model reviewing a number of researches about this topic.

In the view of the above, we aim to establish an integrative model, which may to be useful for the European education systems; not only for Primary and Secondary Education, but also for the University. Although university students are supposed to manage sufficiently this competence before starting higher education, this assumption seems not to be true and, especially in their first years at the university, they need to be trained about.

[1] See the Project ‘Operational design of the ‘learning to learn’ competence for the bachelors’ programmes. Assessment tools and proposals for teaching’, approved by the Ministry of Economy and business of Spain, in the National Research Program Call 2017 (code EDU2017-83284-R).

A systematic literature review was carried out by three members of our research team, analyzing different databases and useful virtual resources: WoS, Scopus, ERIC, EBSCO, ISOC, TESEO, Dialnet, Network Thesis, PsycINFO, ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Scholar Google and ProQuest, among others. The keywords we used were: ‘learning to learn’, ‘learning how to learn’, ‘learning competence’, ‘learning to learn competence/ competency’, ‘learning to learn skills’, ‘learning strategies’, ‘metacognitive strategies’ and ‘self-regulated learning’. After the qualitative review was conducted, the definitions and the models on this topic were compared. To do so, these three researchers analyzed the information collected by means of a content study throughout the documents. Four questions were used to organize the information: How is learning to learn defined? What words/locutions can be considered synonymous of learning to learn? What are the dimensions or components included in this competence? Are there complete-enough models available? These questions were formulated based on those Stringher (2014) used. She was based, at the same time, on the EPPI Centre’s process made at the University of London for systematic reviews of evidence. The search results mainly focused on theoretical aspects and, even more, on the evaluation of the competence (some of these works are, e.g., Deakin et al., 2013; Elshout-Mohr, Meijer, Oostdam, & Van Gelderen, 2004; Hautamäki et al., 2002; Hoskins & Fredriksson, 2008; Stringher, 2014, Thoutenhoofd, & Pirrie, 2015; Yániz & Villardón-Gallego, 2015). Many documents also included an analysis of the learning strategies that this competence should incorporate (Weinstein, 1988; Weinstein et al., 2002; Weinstein & Mayer, 1985; Yip, 2012).

In the light of the results found after review, the researchers agreed to include three dimensions in the LTL competence: cognitive, metacognitive and affective-motivational (Hoskins & Fredriksson, 2008; Stringher, 2014; Yip, 2012). They are based on SL and SRL constructs. The first two ones clearly appear in the initial models and classifications of learning strategies (Weinstein, 1988, Weinstein & Mayer, 1985). The affective-motivational dimension takes a little longer to appear, but it is already relevant in self-regulated learning models (Pintrich, 2004; Zimmerman, 1986, 2002). It was necessary to add a fourth dimension, social-relational, only present in a few models, essentially near to the social-cognitive approach (Thoutenhoofd and Pirrie, 2015). This dimension refers to the importance of learning with and from others. Moreover and out of the research findings, the authors defend it is indispensable to add a fifth dimension, an ethical dimension, not considered in previous models. Ethical aspects have to be considered when the learner is going to learn and to do things with what he has learned, in order to improve himself and others. The autonomous development of the person needs to learn respecting others and contributing to create an increasingly equitable society. Learning to learn should ask the person for committing to collective goals towards a better world. An objective of such magnitude should undoubtedly be pondered on the foundations of the framework on LTL. That is what has been pointing out several reports and authors (OCDE, 2005, Cortina, 2013; Buxarrais & Conciençao, 2017) This may be the interpretation of the Council of Europe (2018), both in terms of the social and the ethical dimensions, regarding to integrity and values, respecting others, showing empathy and commitment, among other relevant aspects. Then, the model of our research team states as follows: LTL dimensions: • Cognitive • Metacognitive • Affective-Motivational • Social-Relational • Ethical

Buxarrais, Mª R. & Conceiçao, Mª (2017). Competencias y competencia ética en la educación superior. In E. Vila (Ed.) Competencias éticas y deontología profesional en la universidad (pp. 89-128). Málaga: Aljibe. Cortina, A. (2013). ¿Para qué sirve realmente la ética? Barcelona: Paidós. Deakin Crick, R., Haigney, D., Huang, S., Coburn, T., & Goldspink, Ch. (2013). Learning power in the workplace: The effective lifelong learning inventory and its reliability and validity and implications. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(11), 2255-2272. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.725075 Elshout-Mohr, M., Meijer, J., Oostdam, R., & Van Gelderen, A. (2004) CCST: A Test for CrossCurricular Skills. Amsterdam: SCO – Kohnstamm Institution, University of Amsterdam. EU (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council of 18 Decembrer 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. Official Journal of the European Union. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/ysXPgf EU (2018). Council Recommendations of 22 May 2018 on key competences for lifelong. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2DwOEin Hautamäki, J., Arinen, P., Eronen, S., Hautamäki, A., Kupianien, S., Lindblom, B., Niemivirta, M., Pakaslahti, L., Rantanen, P., & Scheinin, P. (2002). Assessing Lear¬ning-to-Learn: A Framework. Helsinki: Centre for Educational Assessment, Helsinki University / National Board of Education. Hoskins, B. & Fredriksson, U. (2008). Learning to learn: what is it and can it be measured. Ispra: Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen. Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning (CRELL). OCDE. (2005). The Definition and Selection of Key Competences. Executive Summary. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385-407. doi:1040-726X/04/1200-0385/0 Nisbet, J. & Shucksmith, J. (1987). Estrategias de aprendizaje. Madrid: Santillana. Stringher, C. (2014). What is learning to learn? A learning to learn process and output model. In R. Deakin Crick, C. Stringher, y K. Ren (Eds.), Learning to learn (9-32). London: Routledge. Thoutenhoofd, E. D. & Pirrie, A. (2015). From self-regulation to learning to learn: observations on the construction of self and learning. British Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 72-84. doi:10.1002/berj.3128 Weinstein, C. E. (1988). Assessment and training of student learning strategies. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 291-316). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Yániz, C. & Villardón-Gallego, L. (2015). Competencia para aprender. In L. Villardón-Gallego (Ed.). Competencias genéricas en educación superior (pp. 25-53). Madrid: Narcea. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64-70. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2