What is the viewpoint of university professors about the ‘learning to learn’ competence? That is our research question.

The results here enclosed are based on a three years research.[1]

Learning to learn (LTL) is a key competence for lifelong learning (EU, 2006 & 2018) in the European education systems.

The definition of this competence is based on the scientific literature: “Strategic Learning” (SL) (Weinsten, 1988) and “Self-Regulated Learning” theories (SRL) (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2002) are the main sources. The first one is supported by the information processing theory and the second by the social-cognitive theory.

At the beginning, the researchers tried to explain how students ‘learn to learn’ including typically three dimensions in LTL: cognitive (skills, strategies and techniques related to information processing), metacognitive (awareness and management of the learning processes) and affective-motivational (self-concept, motivation, attitudes, etc.) (Hoskins & Fredriksson, 2008).

Later, a fourth dimension was added: the social/relational dimension, rooted in the social-cognitive theory (Thoutenhoofd & Pirrie, 2013) and regarding to learning with others, in context. These ideas clearly influenced the current proposal of the EU (2018), who has renamed the competence as ‘personal, social and learning competence’.

In order to teach, learn and assess this competence in the education systems, following the recommendations of the EU, it is necessary to achieve a European model.

There has been some important researches developed in Europe trying to agree a model about the competence and also instruments for its evaluation (Hautamäki et al., 2002; Hoskins & Fredriksson, 2008; Stringher, 2014). However, in spite of these works, there is no agreement neither about the model nor about the assessment instruments.

Present day, as it was said above, one European model needs to be implemented to follow the recommendations of the EU and include effectively this competence in the education systems. That is why our research team has developed a model about the learning to learn competence. This model should be useful not only for Primary and Secondary Education, but also for the University.

Based on a literature review, our research team developed a model on LTL including five dimensions: cognitive, metacognitive and affective-motivational, on the one hand; and on the other, social-relational and ethical dimensions. It was fair to include a social-relational dimension, related to learning with/from others, in context, and also an ethical dimension. The autonomous development of the student implies to learn respecting others, respecting ethical codes and contributing to create an increasingly equitable society (OECD, 2005; Cortina, 2013; Buxarrais & Conceiçao, 2017). Every dimension was developed in subdimensions to concrete their different components.

Dimensions and subdimensions:

• Cognitive (C):

-          Effective management of information

-          Oral communication skills

-          Written communication skills

-          ICT management

-          Critical and creative thinking

• Metacognitive (MCD)

-          Knowing oneself-task-strategies

-          Planning and organization

-          Self-evaluation/self-control/self-regulation

-          Problem solving

• Affective-Motivational (AMD)

-          Motivation and positive attitude

-          Internal attributions

-          Self-concept/self-esteem/self-efficacy

-          Emotional self-regulation

• Social-Relational (SRD)

-          Social values

-          Attitudes towards cooperation and solidarity

-          Teamwork

-          Environmental control

• Ethical (ED)

-          Responsibility

-          Civic/moral attitudes/values

-          Deontological codes

We are validating this model by comparing our proposal with the opinion of the main key informants about university training: professors, students, employees, employers and also experts were inquired.

In this paper we show the results on professors’ viewpoint. Thus, the aim of this paper is to get feedback on this model from the perspective of university professors.

[1] This is the ‘Operational design of the ‘learn to learn’ competence for university degrees. Assessment  tools and proposals for teaching’ project, approved by the Spanish Economy and Business Ministry, National Research Program Call 2017 (code EDU2017-83284-R).

Participants The study was carried out with 19 university professors from the following knowledge areas: Educational Sciences (n=5), Health Sciences (n=6) and Engineering (n=8). Design This study was conducted with non-probabilistic and incidental sampling, and methods were qualitative in order to get comprehensive information about professors’ views on learning to learn. Instruments The coding process of the professors’ testimonies was conducted with the software QDA ATLAS.ti 8. This allowed to perform a qualitative, systematic and visual data analysis. This software facilitates the organization of the data and also the subsequent analytical discussion about them. Procedure First of all, the literature was systematically reviewed for designing an operative theoretical model. After that, the professors were selected by the area of knowledge they came from (Educational Sciences, Health Sciences and Engineering) and the focus groups were then carried out. Participants only had to answer a question in these focus groups and then discussed about it. The question was: ‘From your point of view and regarding ‘learning to learn’ and the need for keep learning, what qualities, skills, etc., should a person acquire or improve during his bachelors’ degree programmes to become a competent and responsible professional?’. Data analysis The transcriptions of the focus groups were incorporated into ATLAS.ti. First, text segments were analysed according to those codes our team defined –based on the model–. Some segments were not coded in this list, so we coded them openly as they were based on the professors’ voices and not on the theoretical model. Second, a conceptual analysis was made building networks and relationships. These codes were grouped into general codes (subdimensions) and the general ones into families (dimensions) according to the initial theoretical model, but also to the words of participants. The focus groups provided information about the ‘learning to learn’ competence from the professors’ point of view in a deductive-inductive analysis, which avoided reductionism as much as possible. Two parameters* were taken into account for understanding the view of the students: • Density (D), with respect to the number of links a code has with other codes. • Groundedness (G), with respect to the number of times a code has been cited. *This data (D and G scores) will be enclosed in our poster, like a Figure, if it is accepted. The Conftool Conference doesn’t allow figures, tables and graphs to be included.

The five dimensions clearly appeared in the professors’ expressions. The two most relevant dimensions were CD and MCD. There were 17 comments about CD and 21 about MCD (Groundedness scores). The other dimensions were also important for professors: AMD appeared 11 times, SRD 6 and ED 9. This last dimension was not in previous models on LTL and was introduced by this research team in our theoretical model. Therefore, it is very important to confirm that ED is also relevant for professors. Within CD, the most frequently mentioned subdimension was Effective Management of Information (9 times). This subdimension refers to the adequate use of good sources of information and to information processing, transforming this information into knowledge and using it in the education systems and other contexts (family, work, etc.). The most frequently mentioned subdimension in MCD was Problem Solving (11 times). This would be analysing and solving problems efficiently and in a contextualized way, developing complex reasoning processes when necessary. Inside AMD, the two most quoted subdimensions were Motivation and positive attitude towards learning and improvement (4 times) and also Self-concept, Self-esteem, Self-efficacy (4 times). The most cited subdimension in SRD was Teamwork (4 times). Within ED, the most mentioned was Responsibility for Learning (4 times). In addition, professors establish inter-dimension relationships (Density scores). In fact, they did it between CD and MCD, connecting Critical thinking (Analysis, inference and critical reasoning) with Problem Solving. They also associated CD and AMD. Particularly, they related Oral Communication Skills with Self-concept, Self-esteem, Self-efficacy. In conclusion, the data collected from professors supported the theoretical structure developed by our research team to describe the LTL competence.

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. EU (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2rDYtnP EU (2018). Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on key competences for lifelong learning. 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 Learning-to-Learn: A Framework. Helsinki, Finland: 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, Italy: Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning (CRELL). OECD. (2005). The Definition and Selection of Key Competencies. Executive Summary. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2yTgamk Stringher, C. (2014). What is learning to learn? A learning to learn process and output model. In R. Deakin Crick, C. Stringher, & K. Ren (Eds.), Learning to learn (pp. 9-32). London, UK: Routledge. Thoutenhoofd, E. D. & Pirrie, A. (2013). 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. En R.R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (291-316). Nueva York: Plenum Press. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64-70. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2