Competencies learning seeks to provide greater independence in the learning process of students. For this, participatory strategies must be introduced to make the learning more active, constructive, and autonomous. This gives the student the main role in their learning (Khün, 2017) while the teacher becomes a planner, promoter and coordinator who supports the student by supervising the progress (Delgado, Hortigüela, Ausín & Abella, 2018; Lluch & Portillo, 2018; Martínez, 2015; Svinicki & Schallert, 2016). We know that today there are various scenarios, formal and informal, where there is an exchange of information that favours the construction of knowledge or student learning (Burbules 2014; Ribeiro, Hernández y Muñoz, 2015; Ruiz y García, 2019). In other words, educational centres, together with the environment surrounding an individual, create a network that interacts to facilitate learning, making it much more significant for students. For this to happen effectively, it is essential to know what factors may or may not influence the construction of knowledge and thus implement methodologies that promote more reflective, autonomous, and participatory learning.

The theme of this research is based on the model of learning patterns. The learning pattern is defined as a coherent set of activities that students use during a certain period, where the interrelationships between cognitive, affective, and regulatory learning activities are united, as well as the motivations for learning and their beliefs (Vermunt, 2005; Vermunt y Donche 2017). Vermunt in 1998, began an investigation that resulted in the presence of four factors. Two of them have been widely studied (cognitive strategies and motivational orientations) and the other two were least inquired (regulation strategies and conceptions of learning) (Martínez, 2019). Regulation strategies are those activities that students use to plan, review, and evaluate their learning process. As for the learning perceptions and beliefs, these are classified as the conceptions of learning. Finally, the motivational orientations refer to the objectives, goals, and concerns of the students in relation to their studies. (Velmunt y Donche 2017).

These factors are not independent, on the contrary, there is a correspondence between the values ​​of each factor, thus forming a pattern of internal coherence (Hederich y Camargo, 2019). In this way, four learning patterns are formed, which Vermont (1998) classifies as follows: • Meaning-directed (MD): With learning beliefs related to the construction of knowledge, motivations linked to their interests, which activates the use of self-regulated strategies through deep information processing. • Application-oriented (AO): With beliefs related to the use of knowledge, motivations based on a vocational orientation that activates strategies of self-regulation and external regulation through information processing focused on specific contexts. • Reproducing-oriented (RO): Characterized by a conception of knowledge accumulation, with motivation towards certificates and evaluations, with external regulation of learning using rote strategies in information processing. • Undirected (UD): Indicated by a conception of learning in cooperation and stimulated by the teacher with an ambivalent motivational orientation, with no regulation and information processing strategies.

The Vermunt instrument has been used in various investigations in the university field and in different cultural fields (Asia, Europe, and Latin America, consequently, learning patterns can contribute to creating new teaching strategies that favour learning, where associations between the theoretical aspects and the practical aspects are established. It is about creating appropriate educational actions according to the context and the reality of the students.

The aim of this study was to identify and analyse the learning patterns of second-year students of the Primary Education Teacher degree (PET), and the Physical Activity and Sports Sciences degree (PASS) as well as to analyse whether there are differences in learning patterns, depending on the type of study. 

The design of this research has exploratory nature that uses a quantitative, non-experimental methodology, where the learning patterns of the students of the Faculty of Education of the University of Alicante are referred to and analysed. The sample was made up of 97 students belonging to the second year of the Physical Activity and Sports Sciences degrees (34 students), and Primary Education Teachers degree (63 students). The instrument used was the short, revised version of the Inventory of Learning Patterns ILP (Index for Learning Styles) of the Cognitive Styles Group, based on the original version of the ILS (Inventory of Learning Styles) by J. Vermunt (1998). This version reduces the original number of items from 120 to 60, achieving adequate reliability levels in each of the 14 subscales it evaluates. Each item is answered on a five-point ordinal scale. (1= I rarely or never do it, 2= I do it sometimes, 3= I do it regularly, 4= I do it frequently, 5= I always do it). Likewise, the questionnaire contemplates four factors to assess: Conception of learning, motivational orientations, regulation, and processing strategies. The procedure used was to supply the short version of the ILS questionnaire through the Google Drive form for online completion by students in the second year of the PASS degree and the PET degree, at the end of the first semester. In this process, students were informed of the confidentiality and anonymity of the answers. Quantitative data were structured and analysed using the statistical package SPSS version 26 for Windows, using descriptive statistics, means, standard deviation, and cross tables. For the comparison of means, the student t-test statistic was used for independent samples.

As for the results obtained from the research that were related to the MD Learning Pattern, which corresponds to students capable of learning on their own autonomously, it presented an intermediate assessment (M=3.40). When segregating the sample by academic grade we saw that there were no significant differences between the two groups. Regarding the AO pattern, which corresponds to students whose vocation moves them towards learning that is useful to them and towards specific knowledge, the results indicated a high assessment of this type of learning (M=4.05) presenting no significant differences between students in the PASS and PET grades. Regarding the RO pattern, which means students who accumulate knowledge, prioritize memorization, and whose objective is to pass subjects, the average score obtained by students was (M=3.27). When segregating the sample by academic grade, we also found small, non-significant differences. Finally, the UD pattern was personified by students who were not sure how to approach their studies and who needed external stimulation. This pattern was also valued with an average score (M=3.14) by students in general. There was a significant difference in the accepted conventional levels in the UD stimulation expectations scale, the MEP students showed higher expectations than the PASS students t (95) =-2.63 p=0.010. In short, these data indicated that students in both grades were more application-oriented, with a strong link to vocation and the use of knowledge in specific situations. Whereas PASS students highly value the personal interests of the MD pattern, PET students place more value on the stimulating expectations of the UD pattern. Finally, we believe that knowing the learning patterns of the students of the Faculty of Education is an important step to understand the different aspects that affect learning, to develop strategies that improve and promote the autonomous learning of the students.

Burbules, N. (2014). El aprendizaje ubicuo: nuevos contextos, nuevos procesos. Entramado: Educación y Sociedad, 1, 131-136. Delgado, V., Hortigüela, D., Ausín, V., & Abella,V. (2018). El blog como instrumento de mejora para la autorregulación del aprendizaje del estudiante universitario. Estudios Pedagógicos (Valdivia), 44(2), 171-184 González M., & Difabio de Anglat, H. (2016). Enfoque transversal y longitudinal en el estudio de patrones de aprendizaje en alumnos universitarios de ingeniería. Revista Electrónica Actualidades Investigativas en Educación, 16(3) 1-21. doi: http:dx.doi.org/10.15517/aie.v16i3.26089 Hederich-Martínez, C., & Camargo, A. (2019). Revisión crítica del modelo de patrones de aprendizaje de J. Vermunt. Revista Colombiana de Educación, 77, 343-368. doi:https://doi.org/10.17227/ rce.num77-9469. Khün, C. (2017). Are students ready to (re)-design their personal learning environment. The case of the e-dynamic space. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 6(1), 11-19. Lluch, L., & Portillo, M. (2018). La competencia de aprender a aprender. En el marco de la educación superior. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 78(2), 59-76. Marambe, K., Vermunt, J., & Boshuizen, H. (2012). A cross-cultural comparison of student learning patterns in higher education. High Education, 64, 299-316. Martínez, J. A. (2015). Nuevos roles del profesor y del estudiante universitario en el contexto del Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior. Aplicación al área de organización de empresas. Cuadernos de Educación y Desarrollo, 55, 1-34. Martínez-Fernández, R. (2019). El modelo de patrones de aprendizaje: estado actual, reflexiones y perspectivas desde el territorio de Iberoamérica. Revista Colombiana de Educación, 77, 227- 244. doi: 10.17227/rce.num77-9953. Ribeiro, M. T., Hernández, M. J., & Muñoz, J. M. (2015). Aprendizaje informal, alfabetización mediática y e inclusión social. Descripción de una experiencia. Profesorado. Revista de Currículo y Formación del Profesorado, 19(2), 75-91. Ruiz, C., & García, J. (2019). ¿Qué nos aporta el modelo de patrones de aprendizaje para el diseño de acciones formativas? Revista Colombiana de Educación, 1(77), 321-341. doi: 10.17227/rce. num77-9527 Svinicki, M. D., & Schallert D. L. (2016). Learning through group work in the college classroom: Evaluating the evidence from an instructional goal perspective. En M. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: handbook of theory and research (pp. 513-558). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Vermunt, J. D. (2005). Relations between student learning patterns and personal and contextual factors and academic performance. Higher Education, 49, 205-234. doi: doi.org/10.1007/s10734- 004-6664-2. Vermunt, J. D., & Donche, V. (2017). A learning patterns perspective on student learning in higher education: State of the art and moving forward. Educational Psychology Review, 29(2), 269-299. DOI: doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9414-6