Learning to Learn (LtL) is one of the eight key competences that the European Commission proposed for education systems (EC, 2006) and this competence was described as follows:

“Learning to learn” is the ability to pursue and persist in learning […], to organise one’s own learning, including through effective management of time and information, both individually and in groups. […] awareness of one’s learning process […] identifying available opportunities […] overcome obstacles in order to learn successfully. […] gaining, processing and assimilating new knowledge and skills. […] to use and apply knowledge and skills in a variety of contexts […]. Motivation and confidence are crucial to an individual’s competence. (p. 16)

Later, the European Council reformulated this competence, setting out the “Personal, Social and Learning to Learn Competence” (EC, 2018), which places more importance on social aspects than in the earlier definition:

Personal, social and learning to learn competence is the ability to reflect upon oneself, effectively manage time and information, work with others in a constructive way, remain resilient and manage one’s own learning and career. It includes the ability to cope with uncertainty and complexity, learn to learn, support one’s physical and emotional well-being […] empathize and manage conflict. (p. 5)

The definition of LtL relies mainly on the scientific literature on Strategic Learning (SL) (Weinsten, 1988) and Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) (Pintrich, 2004; Zimmerman, 2002).

Based on a literature review, our research team developed a model on LtL, including the three classical dimensions coming from the theory about SL and SRL: Cognitive, Metacognitive and Affective-Motivational, an also the Social-Relational dimension, rooted in the social-cognitive theory (Thoutenhoofd & Pirrie, 2013). These ideas clearly influenced the current proposal of the EU (2018), who has renamed LTL as ‘personal, social and learning to learn competence’ (Caena, 2019); Sala et al., 2020).

We added to these four dimensions a fifth one, an Ethical dimension (Gargallo et al. 2020). It is necessary, to handle the learning to learn competence well, that students respect ethical codes and contribute to create an increasingly equitable society (Cortina, 2013; Buxarrais & Conceiçao, 2017).

The European Union aimed for students to achieve an adequate mastery of LtL at the end of compulsory schooling. Generally speaking, we tend to think that students manage it quite well when they start university, and that this management will improve as they continue their university studies. However, this assumption needs to be verified. It is not proved that university students handle this competence with an adequate skill, and there are some researchers who defend that they need specific training (Cameron and Rideout, 2020; Viejo and Ortega-Ruiz, 2018).

So, we believe that is very important to establish whether university students manage LtL well and to analyse its impact on academic achievement, given that there are few studies available on the topic in higher education. For this purpose, we have collected data from the research Project we are developing[1].

The aim of this work is to concrete the level at which this competence is managed, and also to delimit profiles of LtL use by university students and their relation to academic performance.

Based on these data, we are developing in our current research project an intervention model for teaching this competence, which may be useful for European researchers and university teachers.

[1] ‘The learning to learn competence in the university, its design and curriculum development. a model of intervention and its application in university degrees’ Project PID2021-123523NB-I00, funded by the MCIN/AEI /10.13039/501100011033 and by ERDF A way of making Europe.

Design The research used a quantitative non-experimental descriptive and correlational design (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). Sample The sample consisted of 1.120 students from two public universities in the city of Valencia (Spain) (University of Valencia and Polytechnic University of Valencia) belonging to different areas of study and to different academic years. They answered the QELtLCUS (Questionnaire to Evaluate the Learning to Learn Competence of University Students), an instrument developed by the research team (Gargallo et al., 2021). Instruments The QELtLCUS questionnaire comprises 85 items organized in 5 scales, that assess the five dimensions of the theoretical model listed above (cognitive, metacognitive, affective-motivational, social-relational, and ethical) and 29 subdimensions. The questionnaire has a self-report format, and the students answered the items on a five-item Likert-type response scale, agree-disagree (5-4-3-2-1). The questionnaire’s construct validation was checked through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (Gargallo et al., (2021) using the lavaan program (Rosseel 2012), as there was a theoretical model whose validity was to be tested and given that there was a clear idea of what items comprised each dimension and subdimension of the instrument (Lloret-Segura et al., 2014). Procedures We also collected the grades of these students in the first trimester of the 2022-2023 academic year. The students answered the questionnaire in a single ordinary class session through an online application. The requirements of the Ethics Committee of the Universidad de Valencia were taken into account: the students were informed of the aims and process of the research, and participation was voluntary. Before answering, they gave informed consent and then completed the questionnaire, including demographic data, but no data that personally identified them, in order to respect their anonymity. We performed descriptive analyses, cluster analysis and analysis of differences, and also multiple linear regression analysis. Statistical analyses were performed by SPSS 26.0.

In order to check the level of management of LtL, we performed descriptive analyses and we studied the mean scores of the students in the 5 dimensiones and 29 subdimensions. The sample subjects indicated an acceptable management level, but with low scores for some relevant LtL dimensions (specially Planning, Organising and Controlling Anxiety). The highest scores were found in Social-Relational and Ethical dimensions (higher than 4). The scores in Cognitive, Metacognitive and Affective-Motivational dimensions were higher than 3 and lower than 4. By means of cluster analysis two groups were found with two different management profiles: one of them with a high level and another one with a lower level in the five dimensions of LtL competence and in the 29 subdimensions. The students in the first group scored better than those in the second group, in LtL and also in grades, with statistically significant results. To analyse the influence of the LtL dimensions on academic achievement we implemented a complete multiple regression model for each group (high and lower), with the criterion being academic achievement and the predictors the five LtL dimensions. The regression model was significant in the lower group, with an explanation by the predictors for academic achievement of 2.3%, and also in the high group, with an explanation of 6.8%. As for significant predictors that contribute to the explanation of the model, only the metacognitive dimension was significant in the lower group, but in the high group, they were all significant except for the ethical dimension, with the cognitive dimension having the greatest contribution and the social-relational dimension the smallest. In conclusion, this competence influences academic performance and not all students show a high level of proficiency. Therefore, it is necessary to teach the competence, at least in the first years of university degrees.

Buxarrais, Mª R. & Conceiçao, Mª (2017). Competencias y competencia ética en la educación superior. En E. Vila (Coord.) Competencias éticas y deontología profesional en la universidad (pp. 89-128). Aljibe. Caena, F. (2019). Developing a European Framework for the Personal, Social & Learning lo Learn Key Competence. Publications Office of the European Union. https://bit.ly/2vBzK8A Cameron, R. B. & Rideout. C.A. (2020). It’s been a challenge finding new ways to learn: fist-year students’ perceptions of adapting to learning in a university environment. Studies in Higher Education, 42 (11), 2153-2169. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1783525. Cortina, A. (2013) ¿Para qué sirve realmente la ética? Barcelona: Paidós. EC (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 Decembrer 2006 on Key Competences for LifeLong Learning. European Commission. EC (2018). Accompanying the document Proposal for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION on Key Competences for LifeLong Learning. European Commission. Retrieved from http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5464-2018-ADD-2/EN/pdf Sala, A., Punie, Y., Garkov, V. & Cabrera Giraldez, M. (2020). LifeComp: The European Framework for Personal, Social and Learning to Learn Key Competence. Publications Office of the European Union. https//doi.org/10.2760/302967. Gargallo Lopez, B.; Perez-Perez, C.; Garcia-Garcia, F.J.; Gimenez Beut, J.A., & Portillo Poblador, N. (2020). The skill of learning to learn at university. Proposal for a theoretical model. Educación XX1, 23(1), 19-44, http://doi.org/0000-0002-7158-6737 Gargallo-López, B., Suárez-Rodríguez, J.M., Pérez-Pérez, C., Almerich Cerveró, G., & Garcia-Garcia, F.J. (2021). The QELtLCUS questionnaire. An instrument for evaluating the learning to learn competence in university students. RELIEVE, 27(1), art. 1. http://doi.org/10.30827/relieve.v27i1.20760 Lloret-Segura, S., Ferreres-Traver, A., Hernández-Baeza, A., y Tomás-Marco, I. (2014). El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 1151-1169. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361 McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in Education: Evidence Bases Inquiry, 7th Edition. Pearson. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of statistical software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02 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, 4 (1), 72-84. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3128 Viejo, C. & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2018). Competencias para la investigación: el trabajo de fin de Máster y su potencialidad formativa. Revista de innovación y buenas prácticas docentes, 5, 46-56. https://doi.org/10.21071/ripadoc.v5i.10970 Weinstein, C.E. (1988): Assessment and training of student learning strategies. In R.R. Schmeck, Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 291-316). Plenum Press. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64-70.