The Learning to Learn competence (LtL) was proposed by the European Comission (EC) (2006 and 2018) as a key competence for lifelong learning.

LtL is a concept grounded in cognitive psychology/information processing theory (learning strategies/strategic learning), and in the socio-cognitive approach (self-regulated learning) (Pintrich, 2004; Weinstein, Husman & Dierking, 2000; Zimmerman, 2002). This concept was developed in the 1980s and initially included three dimensions: cognitive (skills and strategies related to information processing), metacognitive (knowledge and control of the learning process) and affective-motivational (self-concept, motivation, etc.) (Hoskins & Fredriksson, 2008). 

Based on the scientific literature, the EC (2006) described LtL competence including the three classic dimensions mentioned above.

Another dimension, the Social/Relational, was added in the scientific literature from the socio-cognitive approach (Järvelä et al. 2019; Zimmerman, 2002), and nowadays this dimension occupies a relevant role in the different models elaborated, as testified, among others, by Järvelä and Hadwin (2024), Panadero (2017) or Stringher (2014).

The enrichment of the concept, integrating social aspects, helps to understand the subsequent reformulation of the competence, carried out by the EC (2018), in which the objective is broadened and the competence is labeled as “Personal, Social and Learning to Learn Competence”. The objective of the European Comission was for the students to achieve an adequate mastery of LtL at the end of compulsory schooling.

Based on a literature review, our research team developed a model on LtL, including these four dimensions and we added, as a fifth dimension, the ethical dimension (Gargallo et al. 2020). As we said before, the first three derive from strategic and self-regulated learning theory, and the fourth from the socio-cognitive approach. The fifth is a contribution of our research team and is based on the most recent EC formulation of competence and other research (Grace et al. 2017; Kass & Faden, 2018). A learner cannot be interpreted as competent in LtL by neglecting the ethical components involved in learning.

Although it has been thought that learning to learn had to be taught only in pre-university training, there are studies that confirm that university students lack an adequate management of competence, especially in the first years (Cameron & Rideout, 2020; Morón-Monge & García-Carmona, 2022). Therefore, based on the model we had developed, systematic work is postulated for the teaching and learning of the competence in university degrees, since university students do not handle it with sufficient expertise.

That is why we are developing a three-year research project ^[1] to do this. In this project, we are aplying funcional proposals to teach this competence in the first years of university degrees (Pedagogy, Social Education, Medicine, Fine Arts, Engineering and Architecture) of two public public valencian universities (University of Valencia and Polytechnic University of Valencia). We are developing educational programmes to teach the LtL competence, that are integrated into the teaching of these university degrees, as educational content, to be taught, assesed and learned. To do this, we propose a “constructive alignment” (Biggs, 2005), in which competences, contents, learning outcomes, and teaching and assessment procedures are aligned to achieve learning of quality. Our results can be useful, as an intervention model, for European researchers and university professors.

The objective of this work, as a part of the research project, was to assess an educational training programme applied to teach this competence in a subject of the degree of Pedagogy at the University of Valencia.

[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.

A quasi-experimental design pretest-posttest with two groups, experimental and control, and a focus group were used to collect information. We used a sample of 85 students, belonging to two groups of the first year of the Pedagogy degree at the University of Valencia. The experimental group (A) (with educational programme) consisted of 43 students and the control group (B) (without educational programme) of 42. 88,2% were female and 11,8% male. One teacher taught the subject in the A group and another teacher in the B group. 8 students of the experimental group were selected for the focus group. To assess the competence, the QELtLCUS questionnaire (Gargallo et al., 2021) was used, as well as two deliveries of a portfolio assessed by means of a rubric, after and before the training programme. The questionnaire consists of 85 items organized in 5 scales, that assesses the five dimensions listed above (cognitive, metacognitive, affective-motivational, social-relational, and ethical) and twenty-nine subdimensions. It has a self-report format, with a Likert-type scale agree-disagree. We also used a rubric designed with 18 items to evaluate the level of mastery of the components of LtL competence needed to develop a good portfolio (Planning, Self-assessment, Organization, Understanding, Communication abilities, etc.), and we worked this components in the programme. The educational programme was applied in Theory of Education, a compulsory subject in the 1st year of the Pedagogy degree at the University of Valencia. It was developed during five one-hour sessions, included in the class sessions. This subject is assigned 6 credits in the first semester of the 2023-24 academic year. In this programme, several components of the cognitive (search skills, selection, elaboration, organization, etc.), metacognitive (planning and self-assessment) and ethics dimensions (hard work, responsible and committed) were worked, all of them linked to the contents that were being taught in the subject. Altough several different methods were used in the class-room, the portfolio was the key instrument. Students made two deliveries, one in the middle of the semester and another at the end, collecting their tasks and practical activities to demonstrate their learning. This was an authentic assessment, that allowed us to assess the use of LtL competence in the portfolio by means of the rubric, and complemented the information collected through the QELtLCUS questionnaire. The general objective of this educational programme was to increase the level of LtL competence of the trained components.

Statistical analyses were performed by SPSS25, using Paired samples t-test, after checking the sample for normality, comparing pretest-posttest data. QELtLCUS result: Experimental group: results showed differences in the cognitive, metacognitive, and ethical dimension scores, being higher in the posttest, without any statistically significant difference, although the differences were close to the level of significance in Cognitive dimension (p=.07). Control group: results showed differences in the cognitive, metacognitive, and ethical dimension scores, being lower in the posttest, with statistically significant difference in Cognitive dimension (p=<.05). Rubric results: Experimental group: there were statistically significant differences in 15 out of the 18 items, with better scores in the posttest: Planning (p<.001), Self-assessment (p<.001), Information search (p<.01), Elaboration (p<.001), Organization (p<.01), Comprehension (p<.01), Absence of conceptual errors (p<.001), Correct presentation (p<.001), Management of ICTs (p<.001), Communication skills (p<.01), Paraphrasing of the text (p<.01), Bibliographic references (p<.01), Spelling (p<.001), Critical Thinking (p<.01), and Honesty-Values (p<.05). Control group: there were statistically significant difference only in 6 out of the 18 items, with better scores in the posttest: Correct presentation (p<.01), Communication skills (p<.05), Paraphrasing of the text (p<.01), Citation system (p<.05), Spelling (6.331, p<.001), Critical Thinking (p<.05). The QELtLCUS results come from the answers of the students to the questionnaire and from their subjective perception. The results of the rubric reflect the real execution by the students of a complex task, the portfolio. The results of the focus group were also good, as the students assessed the training programme developed very positively. These are good results, supporting the quality of the training programme, which encourages us to continue on this path, approaching the teaching of LtL with authentic tasks and authentic assessment linked to the subjects contents.

Biggs, J. (2005). Calidad del aprendizaje universitario. Narcea 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. European Commission (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 Decembrer 2006 on Key Competences for LifeLong Learning. European Commission. European Commission. (2018). COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION of 22 May 2018 on Key Competences for LifeLong Learning. European Commission. 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 Grace, S., Innes, E., Patton N., & Stockhausen, L. (2017). Ethical experiential learning in medical, nursing and allied health education: A narrative view. Nurse Education today, 51, 23-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.12.024 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). Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H. & Malmberg, J. (2019). Capturing the dynamic and cyclical nature of regulation: Methodological Progress in understanding socially shared regulation in learning. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn, 14, 425–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-019-09313-2 Kass, M., & Faden, R. R. (2018). Ethics and learning health care: the essentials roles of engagement, transparency, and accountability. Learning Health Systems, 2(4), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1002/lrh2.10066 Morón-Monge, H. & García-Carmona, A. (2022). Developing prospective primary teachers’ learning-to-learn competence through experimental activities, International Journal of Science Education, 44(12), 2015-2034. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2108929 Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385-407. Stringher, C. (2014). What is learning to learn? A learning to learn process and output model. En R. Deakin Crick, C. Stringher, y K. Ren (Eds.), Learning to learn (pp. 9-32). Routledge. Weinstein, C.E., J. Husman, & D. Dierking (2002). Self-Regulation Interventions with a focus on learning strategies”. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich and M. Zeinder, Handbook of Self-regulation (pp. 727-747). Academic Press. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64-70.