The professional development of university faculty is a critical aspect of ensuring the quality of teaching, research, and contribution to the academic community (Biggs, 2005). Most universities offer pedagogical training programs to ensure that higher education responds effectively to the needs of students and society, as well as to improve the quality of teaching and contribute to the formation of individuals capable of facing learning challenges in an autonomous and reflective manner (Boud & Hager, 2012).

In this context, the Institute of Educational Sciences (ICE) of the Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV) has been developing the Expert Diploma in University Pedagogy  (DEXPU) for more than two decades, in which more than 600 teachers from different areas of knowledge have participated throughout its editions. Its aim is to develop the necessary competencies to implement quality teaching, where the students and their education are at the center, using various strategies and training tools to face contemporary educational challenges(Paricio, J.; Fernández A.; Fernández I.; 2019).

The program focuses its attention on the professional experience of each teacher, on their analysis and evaluation, in order to later confront them with others and thus obtain ideas and sensations that can serve as a model for the general public (Paricio, J.; Fernández A.; Fernández I.; 2019). This approach highlights the uniqueness of each participant's experience, resulting in personalized learning objectives, where support from peers, tutors, and trainers is crucial (Zeichner & Liston, 2013).

The importance of this training is undeniable in the current educational context. As universities face changing challenges and diversity in their communities, the faculty's ability to provide quality education has become more critical than ever. Constant technological evolution, the demands of a diverse student group, and varying expectations for higher education quality underscore the importance of faculty acquiring and refining solid pedagogical skills.

Facilitating professional development not only benefits the teacher, but also has a direct impact on the student learning experience (Pintrich, 2004). Pedagogically well-prepared teachers are better able to adapt to different learning styles, encourage active participation in the learning process, and develop the ability to adapt to the needs of students (Pintrich, 2004). Teachers who are better prepared pedagogically are better able to adapt to diverse learning styles, encourage active participation and provide meaningful feedback.

Furthermore, the competence of "learning to learn" becomes central in this context, referring to a person's ability to acquire, process, organise and apply knowledge effectively and autonomously (Yániz; Villardón-Gallego, 2015). This competence is essential in an ever-changing educational and professional environment. Thus, faculty, by developing pedagogical skills, empower students to become independent and adaptable learners (Deakin; Stringher; and Ren, 2014), preparing them to face changing challenges in their future careers (Panadero, 2017).

Therefore, our research question focuses on how the professional development of university faculty influences their ability to effectively promote the acquisition of the "Learning to Learn" Competence (AaA) among their students.

In this paper, we present the results of the self-assessment guide, developed by our research team and carried out by the participants of the last edition of the DEXPU. The self-assessment guide focuses on the analysis of their teaching task, evaluating key aspects influencing their professional work. It is a personal tool that facilitates faculty reflection on their teaching performance and encourages self-management of adjustments and/or changes they deem appropriate. The guide consists of eight dimensions defining a good teacher according to research standards (Paricio, J.; Fernández A.; Fernández I.; 2019).

The methodology used is a quantitative analysis of the self-assessment guide. The guide consists of 72 statements (descriptors for each of the dimensions) using a 5-point Likert scale: 11. Not necessary; 2. I do it poorly; 3. I do it moderately; 4. I do it well; 5. I do it very well. The eight dimensions refer to course planning (dim.1); class preparation (dim.2); performance during the course (dim.3); performance in expository-participative classes (dim.4); performance in group activities (dim.5); teacher-student relationship (dim.6); mastery of the subject (dim.7) and evaluation (dim.8). Personal and overall averages have been calculated to provide both a group diagnosis, identifying common needs, and individual analyses, resembling a report where each participant can compare their assessment with the group average. Additionally, a qualitative analysis was conducted based on reflections solicited from the participants for each dimension after the presentation of the overall results. This qualitative aspect adds depth to the understanding of the participants' perspectives and allows for a more nuanced interpretation of the quantitative results.

Several conclusions can be drawn from the results. Overall, the group shows similar scores across all dimensions, averaging over 7 points (scale from 0 to 10), which indicates a fairly good perception of their teaching performance. For the dimensions with the best results, the performance in the course (dim.3) and the teacher-student relationship (dim.6), the faculty's attitude towards students is evaluated, suggesting a faculty that is genuinely concerned about students’ welfare and the need for close interaction. On the other hand, the dimensions requiring improvement are course planning (dim.1) and performance in group activities in class (dim. 5), and specific actions will be proposed to provide teachers with strategies for group work methodology, focusing on developing students' "learning to learn" competence. Finally, we highlight four aspects that were considered relevant to develop during the training. The first refers to tutorials, primarily focusing on individual tutoring on-demand, and therefore need to be strengthened, as it is an effective pedagogical tool. The next two are linked to evaluation. On the one hand, there is no evaluation of what the student learns per session, nor are initial evaluations of the content carried out. Initial evaluations allow us to know where the students are starting from and, therefore, to start from what they know, generating a more effective learning process thanks to the relationship established with what has already been understood previously. And, the last aspect to work on is related to the student's workload, the need to know how to estimate the time that students need to assimilate certain content, taking into account the workload involved. Undoubtedly, these results provide visibility and reinforcement for the ongoing training program, addressing both group-wide needs and the specificities of each participant.

•Biggs, J. (2005). Calidad del aprendizaje universitario. Madrid: Narcea. •Boud, D., & Hager, P. (2012). "Re-thinking continuing professional development through changing metaphors and location in professional practices." Studies in Continuing Education, 34(1), 17-30 •Caena, F. (2019). Developing a European Framework for the Personal, Social & Learning lo Learn Key Competence. Luxemboug: Publicatons Office of the European Union. Recuperado de https://bit.ly/2vBzK8A •Deakin, R., Stringher, C. y Ren. K. (2014). Learning to learn. Londres y Nueva York: Routledge. •Panadero, E. (2017). A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six Models and Four Directions for Research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 422. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422 •Paricio, J., Fernández, A. y Fernández, I. (Eds.) (2019). Cartografía de la buena docencia universitaria. Un marco para el desarrollo del profesorado basado en la investigación. Madrid: Narcea. •Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16 (4), 385-407. •Yániz, C. y Villardón-Gallego, L. (2015). Competencia para aprender. En L. Villardón-Gallego (Coord.), Competencias genéricas en educación superior (pp. 25-53). Madrid: Narcea. •Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (2013). "Reflective teaching: An introduction." Routledge