Fecha de recepción: 29/07/22 / Fecha de revisión: 16/02/23 / Fecha de aceptación: 02/03/23

Introduction

It includes the presentation of the paper and the analysis of the literature on the subject, with special emphasis on previous research that justifies the study and that will be contrasted in the discussion of the results.

All text is in 12-point Cambria font, single-spaced and with no spacing between paragraphs. The present study was carried out in one of the Police Training Centers of the Province of Buenos Aires, which is a training center. 

 Although several research studies have been conducted on security forces on topics such as leadership, stress, anxiety, personality styles, among others, there are still no studies on the competence to learn in this population. Rethinking the current models of police training and the competencies presented by personnel is an important element in developing the skills required for the function. It should be noted that continuing with institutional adjustment processes in the Police will be beneficial for security professionals (Bulla et al., 2015; Calandrón, 2008; Ministerio de Seguridad de la Nación, 2018).

 Undoubtedly, as one moves to higher positions in the hierarchy within the security forces, training needs change and become more complex. The management and command of police services implies, as in any management activity, the deployment of a series of professional competencies. The evaluation methodology of this knowledge not only involves the assessment of operational skills, but also of specific competencies linked to self-learning and management. Therefore, it is understood that the assessment of competencies is relevant and is one of the approaches that have contributed most to the improvement of the processes of selection, training and development of people in the work context (Solé Sanosa et al., 2003). It is important to highlight that, together with the evaluation spaces, the shortage of personnel trained as instructors with teaching and police monitoring characteristics must be considered, as the professional promotion path within the force progresses (Villegas et al., 2016).

   Professional competencies are "multidimensional entities that are reflected in repertoires of behaviors directly observable in a specific job in a specific organization, and also in test situations that reproduce this work reality" (Solé Sanosa et al., 2003, p.177)thus, it should be noted that in the different police training institutes both in Argentina and in other countries of the world, different techniques have been introduced with the basic objective of evaluating the professional competencies of officers for their subsequent assignment as well as in order to generate an approximate prediction of their development within the force (Solé Sanosa et al., 2003; Ministerio de Seguridad de la Nación, 2018).

   Since 2016, the Police of the Province of Buenos Aires, incorporated the competency-based evaluation, regulating that it must be carried out on an annual basis.  The need to plan the human resources of the Ministry of Security and to have tools to evaluate the performance of police personnel in their different subscales according to their specific tasks is highlighted. In turn, this competency-based assessment seeks to qualify police personnel in order to contribute to the development of the police career (Ministry of Security of the Province of Buenos Aires, 2016).

A growing and recurring concern in recent decades has been the definition and categorization of these competencies, as well as their analysis (Clemente Ricolfe and Escribá-Pérez, 2013; Gil Flores, 2007). It is necessary to specify a common definition of the term competency, recognized both in the academic and work environments. Discrepancies persist when it comes to delimiting it due to the multitude of interpretations, from more restrictive to more extensive precisions. The latter have a broader vision that encompasses knowledge as well as attitudes, skills, social, personal and motivational aspects. One of the sources of confusion regarding the concept of competence is that they are multidimensional entities. It is important to understand that a professional competency is not an isolated attitude, knowledge or skill but the integration of knowledge, motivations, attitudes, personality traits and skills. Apart from this, it should also be emphasized that competencies are understood from different theoretical conceptions.

There are several definitions of the term competence from which common elements can be extracted that synthesize the essential concept of the term (Corominas et al., 2006). Competence is associated with the action performed in a given context, integrates knowledge, attitudes and procedures, and favors the resolution of professional and social situations. For the present work, the definition of competence is adopted as "a complex know-how resulting from the identification and integrated mobilization of knowledge, skills and attitudes that generate an effective result in the performance of a task, the resolution of a problem and the achievement of an objective" (Yániz and Villardón, 2006, p. 23).

 Among the competencies, the competence to learn is one of the most important foundations of education in the 21st century. For Tedesco (2011) it is necessary to learn to learn, this competence being the one that leads to the famous lifelong learning. It is based on reflection on how and why we learn. The acquisition of this key competence implies knowing how to initiate, manage and persist in learning. It is a fundamental component of the competence to learn, since it is there where the foundations of education in the 21st century are laid. Learning to live together means breaking the tensions between the global and the local, that is, gradually becoming a citizen. Learning to live together is learning to live together, learning to live in peace, learning to be good citizens, which is why it is considered to be the main undertaking of contemporary teaching, education and socialization (Delors et al., 1996).

    Competence to learn is the ability of an individual to take charge of his or her own learning throughout life. It involves cognitive and emotional processes that are developed since childhood and act as a basis for social and motor skills that make it competent to perform successfully in different contexts with criteria of autonomy and efficiency, sustaining lifelong learning. However, it also involves the conscious management of skills (Marín Ortega, 2008; Moreno Hernández and Martín, 2007; Salmerón Pérez and Gutiérrez- Brajos, 2012; Recommendation 2006/962/EC of the European Parliament).

The European Commission (2007) defines competence to learn as the ability to initiate and organize learning, manage time and information effectively both individually and in groups. It involves processes such as assessment of specific learning needs, goal setting, choice of specific strategies and monitoring of learning towards the acquisition of desired objectives. From an integrative approach, it is conceived holistically and comprises the contents or areas of knowledge, together with the core skills and generic skills. In a generic sense, it implies the recognition of common skills that explain variations in different performances by differentiating between more/less effective individuals with respect to those singular characteristics (Moccio and Difabio de Anglat, 2019).

The competence to learn integrates the concept of self-regulated learning (Panadero, 2017; García -Ros and Pérez-González, 2011; Zimmerman, 2000; Zimmerman and Kitsantas, 2007); this learning is characterized by the presence of motivation plus the use of cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies emphasizing the integration of its different elements, effective execution and knowledge transfer. Emphasis is placed on the need for the student to become an autonomous being, to know his cognitive processes and to learn to control his learning process. This new learner should not adjust to acquiring the knowledge provided by others, but should build it personally and manage it based on his or her previous experience. Therefore, teaching must be student-centered: it is the starting point, the center and the end, and must help the student learn to learn to learn, and to learn to think (Torrado et al., 2017).

With regard to its definition, different authors relate learning competency to the disposition of each person to mobilize knowledge, skills and attitudes, to generate their own learning and to regulate it throughout life, in accordance with their needs, resources and objectives (Moreno Hernández and Martín, 2007; Coll, 2010; De la Fuente, 2010). They recognize the generic and transversal nature of this competency and how it is in itself a prerequisite for the development of the other competencies, so that those who can develop it will be in a better disposition to face new learning. From an integrative approach, it is conceived holistically and comprises the contents or areas of knowledge, together with the core skills and generic skills. In a generic sense, it implies the recognition of common skills that explain variations in different performances by differentiating between more/less effective individuals with respect to those singular characteristics (Moccio and Difabio de Anglat, 2019).

Gargallo López et al. (2020) emphasize their importance for learning in formal, non-formal and informal contexts and stress the motivation and curiosity of students to learn. They emphasize reflection and awareness of one's own learning process by planning, monitoring and evaluating one's own performance. Among the central components involved in the process of learning to be a competent learner are cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, emotional and affective (Coll et al., 2012).

The vast majority of research conducted on learning competency concludes that its role in the training process is key in that it enables future professionals to continue learning throughout their lives, and thus be able to respond to the demands of a knowledge and information society characterized by a dynamic of permanent change. Several authors have defined the construct of competence to learn from various perspectives and have constructed mechanisms and instruments that allow its assessment (Carretero and Fuentes, 2010; Jonet-Melía et al., 2012; Martín and Moreno, 2007; Villardón-Gallego et al., 2013).

The theoretical model presented here is made up of four dimensions: personal knowledge as a learner, knowledge construction, knowledge transfer and self-management of learning (Villardón-Gallego et al., 2013).

Personal knowledge as a learner implies knowing oneself from one's capabilities, skills and personal limitations that may hinder learning. It is a strategic knowledge in which one is aware of one's own learning process (Deakin-Crick et al., 2004). On the other hand, Pozo and Monereo i Font (2010) argue that a competent learner will be more efficient in learning to learn when faced with a task and when he/she is able to decide autonomously what he/she should learn and when he/she is able to review during the learning process whether or not he/she is approaching the goals set. Both positions complement each other in that they involve cognitive, metacognitive, volitional and motivational aspects involved in effective learning, whether declarative, procedural or attitudinal. This personal knowledge is directly associated with the possibility of evaluating one's own performance in a task and improving it. It takes into account the way of processing information by estimating the student's ability to identify their study habits (Muñoz-San Roque et al., 2016).

The construction of knowledge is based on the conception that all knowledge is constructed from previously acquired knowledge, being the subject the one who constructs the knowledge. The construction of knowledge demands taking a few more steps such as distinguishing the appropriate information from among the much available, considering various sources for comparison while being aware of the possibility of ideological biases and/or interests existing in the various sources, discerning, examining the information thoroughly, appreciating it critically, integrating it in a meaningful way in the cognitive structures making it one's own, and using it effectively for life. Knowledge is much more than information. This is the raw material for building knowledge, but it requires an added effort (Gargallo López, 2012). Both the selection and the organization of information are important strategies to be put into play within the knowledge to be built, in order to achieve true learning. These strategies strengthen knowledge selection and knowledge utilization (Villardón-Gallego et al., 2013; Villardón-Gallego, 2015).

The third dimension is the transfer of learning, based on the concept of transfer by Ruiz (2002), who defines it as the process by which the person transfers the knowledge constructed, whether these are operations or strategies, to use them in new situations, whether in the daily or school context.   Likewise, the transfer of learning refers to declarative, procedural or even attitudinal knowledge. Contextual or near transfer can be considered when a knowledge is applied to similar situations and far transfer-when knowledge is applied to situations different from those in which it was acquired (Salmerón, 2013). Transfer allows learning in new situations, distinguishing similarities and differences in the proposals (Singley & Anderson, 1989; Tuomi-Grön & Engeström, 2003; Villardón-Gallego et al., 2013).

The fourth dimension is self-management of learning, which refers to the individual's capacity to plan, develop and evaluate his or her learning process. It aims at autonomy in learning, understood as the situation in which the student is in charge of his own learning, monitoring his academic and motivational objectives, managing human and material resources and taking them into account in the decisions and performance of all learning processes (Bandura, 1977). In conclusion, self-management of learning is understood as that in which the student plans, controls and evaluates his or her own learning by meeting academic and motivational objectives using strategies, human, material and technological resources (Núñez Naranjo et al., 2021).

It is worth mentioning that the competence to learn has been carried out and studied throughout the world, however, always associated with university students, but in Argentina is where the first adaptation was carried out for police personnel, which allowed an in-depth look about that population (Villardón-Gallego et al., 2013; Aguilar Rivera et al., 2020).

The present work was aimed at improving the training of police personnel, taking into account the competence to learn, its results and its differences in relation to the dimensions of the scale presented.

 General Objective

To know the competence to learn in police officers of the Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Specific objectives

Describe the competence to learn in police officers according to gender differences.

To know how participants are grouped according to the dimensions of the Competence to Learn scale 

Validate and adapt the Competence to learn scale for police officers.

Method

Design

            Cross-sectional, retrospective and ex-post facto with a single group and multiple measures. An analytical survey was administered with a non-probability purposive sample.

Participants

            The sample consisted of 524 police officers from the Province of Buenos Aires. Forty.6% were female (213) and 59.4% male (311), with ages ranging from 19 to 52 years (mean 31.6 and standard deviation 10.18). Active duty personnel were included, who were taking the annual police training course and pursuing tertiary and university studies at the time the battery was taken. Excluded were those over 60 years of age, personnel not undergoing university/tertiary training, personnel who had not completed the annual training course, police personnel on medical leave (physical and psychiatric), maternity leave and vacation leave. 

Instrument

             The Competence to Learn scale (Villardón-Gallego et al., 2013) consisting of 17 items with a five-option Likert-type response continuum where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree was used. 

      This same instrument with 17 items was validated in Argentine university students (Aguilar-Rivera et al., 2020).  These items make up the four subscales defined by the authors: self-management of learning (8 items, Cronbach's alpha .77), knowledge construction (4 items, Cronbach's alpha .69), personal knowledge as a learner (3 items, Cronbach's alpha .60) and knowledge transfer (2 items, Spearman-Brown coefficient .53). Cronbach's alpha for the total scale was .85.

      Five items were added for the security personnel scale in the two subscales personal knowledge as a learner and knowledge transfer to balance the scale. Following the corresponding statistical tests for its validation and adaptation to security personnel, the scale was reduced to 14 items, becoming more parsimonious and balanced with the 4 previously defined subscales. Cronbach's Alpha for the total scale is .81, being for self-management of learning .66 (3 items) for knowledge construction .64 (3 items) for personal knowledge as a learner .62 (4 items) and for transfer of learning .73 (4 items).

 Procedure

             The chief in charge of the training centers was contacted to request authorization for access to security personnel. In order to reach a broader and more heterogeneous sample, data were collected in person by providing photocopies of the questionnaire. They were given an average time of 30 minutes to perform it. Although the questionnaires were taken within the framework of the training that security personnel undergo at the provincial police training centers, participation was voluntary and anonymous and the responses were collected over a period of three months. Before starting the questionnaire, participants read the header with the informed consent, which complies with the guidelines for ethical behavior in the Social and Human Sciences established by the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET) of Argentina (Res. D. No. 2857/06), in which they were informed about the purposes of the investigation. 

Data Analysis

            The factorial validity of the scale was studied through structural equation modeling using the unweighted least squares (ULS) method. The goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), and the root mean square standardized residual (SRMR) were analyzed. We worked on the basis of the original model, which presents four interrelated dimensions. Reliability was analyzed using Cronbach's alpha. Descriptive statistics were applied to explain the level of learning competence of the sample, seeking means and standard deviations.          To compare the scores in each of the dimensions of the scale, a repeated measures Anova was calculated, applying the post hoc Bonferroni. The Student's t test was used to determine the differences according to sex. The objective of the cluster analysis was to search for similar groups of variables or individuals that were grouped into clusters. Its purpose was to classify the individuals so that those that are most similar to each other are grouped together and the groups obtained are as different as possible. On this occasion, a K-means cluster analysis was applied, using SPSS version 25 and AMOS 5. 

Results

Factorial validity of the scale

The scale presents adequate goodness-of-fit indices GFI = ,95; AGFI = ,95; SRMR = ,07. This is illustrated in Figure 1.

 

Figure 1

Confirmatory factor analysis of the Competence to Learn scale (n = 524).

Goodness of Fit Indexes GFI= .95 AGFI= .95 SRMR= 0.07

Competence to learn in participants

The results obtained by the security agents who participated in this study show that the dimension with the highest scores is Transfer of Learning.  Knowledge Construction is the dimension with the lowest score (see Table 1). Mean differences among the four dimensions are significant F (6.696) =1162,93, p = 000, ɳ²_p = .91 

 

Table 1
Means for the four dimensions of Learning Competence

Dimension	N	Minimum	Maximum	Media	DE
Total Learning Competence   Self-management of Learning	5 24   524	1   1	5   5	2.81   2.45	0,31   0,38
Transfer of Learning	524	1	5	3.37	0,46
Knowledge Construction	524	1	5	2.40	0,41
Knowledge as an Apprentice	524	1	5	3.02	0,45

 

The K-means cluster test is a tool designed to assign cases to a fixed number of groups (clusters) whose characteristics are not yet known but are based on a set of specified variables.

The participants were grouped into four clusters whose similarities and differences are shown in Table 2.

Cluster 1 has 159 individuals, who present a high level in the transfer of learning and a medium level of personal knowledge as a learner, knowledge construction and self-management. It is estimated that these participants are able to access the academic content and present a performance in accordance with the situation presented, since the four dimensions are found with a good performance.

Cluster 2 with 121 individuals and cluster 3 formed by 115 agents stand out in having high personal knowledge as a learner and transfer of learning. At the middle level is the construction of knowledge and self-management. These individuals show knowledge of how they learn best and what strategies to use and know how to apply what they have learned in other academic situations. The results of the means of Cluster 2 are the highest when compared to those of the other three clusters. The results of cluster 4 are the lowest when compared to those of the other three clusters.

Cluster 4 is formed by 129 people with a medium level in personal knowledge as a learner, knowledge construction and self-management and a low level in knowledge construction. These participants require specific work that accompanies them in the different dimensions of learning competence, but with greater attention to the construction of knowledge.

Table 2
Cluster Analysis

Dimensions	1	2	3	4
Knowledge	2.82	3.47	3.23	2.64
Construction	2.43	2.77	2.53	1.89
Transfer	3.63	3.80	3.00	2.98
Self-management	2.45	2.86	2.33	2.19

* low; * medium; * high

Source: Own elaboration

 

 

The Student's t-test was applied to study the differences according to gender and showed that they were not significant (Table 3).

Table 3
 Differences in the dimensions of learning competence according to gender

Dimension	Sex	N	Media	DE	T
Total Learning Competence	male	311	2.81	0,32	t (522) = ,359; p = ,595; 95% CI -,89;1,30
	woman	213	2.80	0,30
Self-management of Learning	male	311	2.47	0,38	t (522) = 1.34; p = ,331; 95% CI -.10; ,55
	woman	211	2.43	0,37
Knowledge Transfer	male	313	3.37	0,46	t (522) = -.009; p = ,881; 95% CI -.41; ,40
	woman	211	3.37	0,46
Knowledge Construction	male	311	2.40	0,41	t (522) = -.128; p = ,912; CI 95% -.38; ,33
	woman	213	2.40	0,40
Knowledge as an Apprentice	Male Woman	311 213	3.02	0,46	t (522) = -.002; p = ,849; 95% CI -.39; ,39

 

Discussion and conclusions

Finally, the central objective of this research, with police officers from the Province of Buenos Aires (Argentina) was to validate and adapt the Competence to Learn Scale, an original instrument designed and validated at the University of Deusto-Bilbao (Villardón-Gallego et al., 2013). Following the guidelines regarding the use of questionnaires in other contexts and reaffirming the need to use in our population those that are adapted (García -Ripa et al., 2018) such scale was first validated and adapted for Argentine university students (Aguilar-Rivera et al., 2020). On that occasion, 940 students from different provinces of the territory and from both private and public institutions were invited to participate. This version adopted the structural model of four interrelated dimensions: self-management of learning, knowledge construction, knowledge as learner and transfer of learning. We can say that the model meets the reliability and validity requirements by obtaining a Cronbach's alpha index of .85 and goodness-of-fit indices that are considered very adequate, CFI .98, AFGI .98 and SRMR .04. These indices are also appropriate for females as well as males. 

With the purpose of evaluating the competence to learn in police officers attending the Police Training and Qualification Center, five more items were elaborated for the dimensions Transfer of Learning and Personal Knowledge as a learner, leaving a survey of 22 items, seeking a more balanced scale with more balanced dimensions. Based on the statistical tests, the scale was made up of fourteen items, making it more parsimonious and balanced. It was named Competence to learn in security personnel and the structural model of the four dimensions was adopted. Said scale presents acceptable fit indices (GFI = ,95; AGFI = ,95; SRMR = ,07) and a reliability coefficient, Cronbach's Alpha for the total scale is .81, being for transfer of learning .73 (4 items) for self-management of learning .66 (3 items) for knowledge construction .64 (3 items) and for personal knowledge as a learner .62 (4 items). 

This competence has been studied by several research groups internationally (Aguilar-Rivera et al., 2020; Gargallo López et al., 2020; Jerónimo-Arango and Yániz, 2017; Jornet-Meliá et al., 2012; Villardón-Gallego et al., 2013) given the importance of its development at both personal and professional levels. With respect to the profile of these participants, no differences were found, according to gender, in the means of learning competency. 

The Transfer dimension of learning is the highest, it shows that what is learned is used in other situations, transferring previously acquired knowledge in concepts, operations, strategies, attitudes, abilities, principles and skills. It is a dynamic and progressive process. It may demand more than one instructional session, may require specific techniques, or may be expressed in other ways beyond knowledge acquisition, such as increasing the speed of learning a new domain (Singley & Anderson, 1989).

The most descended dimension is Knowledge Construction, being the selection and organization of information the most important strategies to be put into play within the knowledge to be built, in order to achieve true learning. These strategies strengthen knowledge selection and utilization. It is right to ask how to help students construct their knowledge, bearing in mind that the construction of knowledge aims at the subject not only assimilating new information to his or her previous cognitive schemas, but also to carry out an intentional reorganization of those schemas, that is, a reconstruction to adapt them to the new information.

The purpose of studying individuals in groups for their similarities and differences (Bisquerra, 1989) is to determine the characteristics of these groups with respect to learning competence. In this way, teachers and trainers will implement programs to make students, in this case security officers, more competent to learn on a daily basis and take charge of their own lifelong learning. Training is a process that enables the trainee to appropriate certain knowledge, capable of modifying the behavior of individuals and the organization to which they belong. The elaboration and implementation of curricular designs of the competence to learn, taking into account the profiles of the groups to be trained, will provide teachers with tools to incorporate them in the contents to be learned and to specify teaching methods and evaluation procedures closer to the reality of the students. Focusing on the clusters, the 129 participants (cluster 4) present three dimensions at medium level (Self-management, Personal knowledge as a learner and Transfer of learning) and one at low level (Knowledge construction). This group presents, with respect to the other three, the lowest level of the dimensions studied. Clusters 2 and 3 present high levels of Personal  knowledge as a learner and Transfer of learning, so from personal knowledge they are able to self-evaluate as they perform their tasks and therefore rectify strategies, in addition to the ability to transfer learning to other concepts. Cluster 1 (159 individuals) present a high level in Transfer of learning and medium levels in Personal knowledge as a learner, Self-management and Construction of knowledge. It is estimated that the 1,2 and 3 will show good academic results and generally good performances.

 It is worth highlighting the challenge posed by competency-oriented teaching, which highlights the need to enable new modes of teaching and assessment (Jornet-Meliá et al., 2012). This competence presents specific connotations, we are aware that, being generic, it has as such a clear transversal component integrating common elements for all students of all degrees, but it also has connotations derived from the singularity of the different university studies making necessary a further work of concretion for its effective teaching and learning.  The adaptation of competency-based assessment techniques in the training field is undoubtedly a good opportunity to enhance the involvement of students in their learning process and professional improvement, as well as to bring the professional reality closer to the academic field: the student obtains feedback on their strengths or weaknesses, in relation to the competencies assessed, and can establish a program for professional improvement and development. The application of these techniques to the field of training is one of several opportunities to work with this methodology; however, as mentioned above, there are many other reasons for the public and security sector to adopt and adapt this work approach or evaluation model (Solé Sanosa, 2003).

Studies have advanced the conceptualization of learning competence as an integration of different elements that favor effective performance throughout life in the different learning situations that arise (Salmerón and Gutiérrez, 2012). To be competent to learn is to be able to face challenges and changes in the future by learning throughout life

References

Delfino, G. y Frascaroli, C. (2020). La competencia para aprender en Argentina. Manuscrito en revisión.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

          Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bisquerra Alzina, R. (1989) Metodología de la Investigación Educativa. Editorial La Muralla. 

Bulla, P., Guarin, S. y García Sanchez, E. (2015). Formación policial y seguridad ciudadana ¿Cómo mejorar el servicio de policía? Análisis, 1-20. http://library.fes.de/pdffiles/bueros/kolumbien/11568-20150826.pdf 

Calandrón, S. (2008). Formar y reformar. Procesos de formación policial en la reforma de la Policía de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. V Jornadas de Sociología de la UNLP. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación. Departamento de Sociología, La Plata

Carretero, R. y Fuentes, M. (2010). La competencia de aprender a aprender. Aula de Innovación Educativa, (192), 7-10.

Clemente Ricolfe, J. S. y Escribá Pérez, C. (2013). Análisis de la percepción de las competencias genéricas adquiridas en la universidad. Revista de Educación, (362), 535-561. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2013-362-241 

Coll, C., Mauri, T. y Ronchera, M. J. (2012). La práctica de evaluación como contexto para aprender a ser un aprendiz competente. Profesorado Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 16(1). https://doi.org/1138-414X-1989-639.

Coll, C. (2010). Enseñar y aprender, construir y compartir: procesos de aprendizaje y ayuda educativa. En C. Coll (Eds.), Desarrollo, aprendizaje y enseñanza en la Educación Secundaria (pp. 31- 56). Graó. 

Comisión Europea (2007). Competencias clave para el aprendizaje permanente: un marco de referencia europeo. Bruselas. http://www.mecd.gob.es/dctm/ministerio/educacion/mecu/movilidad-europa/competenciasclave. pdfdocumentId=0901e72b80685fb1.

Corominas, E., Tesouro, M., Teixidó J., Pèlach, J. y Cortada, R. (2006) Percepciones del profesorado ante la incorporación de las competencias genéricas en formación universitaria. Revista de Educación, 341, 301-336. http://www.revistadeeducación.es/re341_14pdf.

Deakin-Crick, R., Broadfoot, P. & Claxton, G. (2004). Developing an effective lifelong learning inventory: the ELLI Proyect. Assessment in Education, 11(3), 247-272. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594042000304582

De la Fuente, J. (2010). Estrategias metodológicas y de evaluación para promover la competencia para aprender a aprender. Aula de Innovación Educativa, 192, 11-14.

Delors, J., Al Mufti, I., Amagi, I., Carneiro, R., Chung, F., Geremek, B. y Nazhao, Z. (1996). Informe a la Unesco de la comisión internacional sobre la educación para el siglo XXI: La educación encierra un tesoro.  Santillana, Ediciones UNESCO, 91-103.

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea (22 de mayo de 2018). Recomendación del Parlamento y del Consejo sobre las competencias claves para el aprendizaje permanente 2006/962/CE.

García –Ripa, M. I., Sánchez-García, M. F. y Risquez, A. (2018) Perfiles motivacionales de elección de estudios en estudiantes universitarios de nuevo ingreso Universitas Psychology, 17(3). http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8582-7573.

García-Ros, R. y Pérez-González, F. (2011). Validez predictiva e incremental de las habilidades de autorregulación sobre el éxito académico en la universidad. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 16(2), 231-250.

Gargallo López, B., Pérez-Pérez, C., García-García, F. J., Giménez Beut, J.A. y Portillo Poblador, N. (2020). La competencia aprender a aprender en la universidad: propuesta de modelo teórico. Educación XX1, 23(1), 19-44. https://doi.org/10.5944/educXX1.23367 

Gargallo López, B. (2012). Un aprendiz estratégico para una nueva sociedad. Educación y Cultura en la Sociedad de la Información, 13(2), 246-272. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=20102439001

Gil Flores, J. (2007). La evaluación de competencias laborales. Educación XX1: revista de la Facultad de Educación, 16(2), 231-250.

Jerónimo-Arango, L. C. y Yániz, C. (2017). La competencia para aprender en programas de Educación de cuatro universidades colombianas. Revista Colombiana de Ciencias Sociales, 8(2), 439-457. https://doi.org/10.21501/22161201.1992 

Jornet-Meliá, J. M., García-Bellido, R. y González-Such, J. (2012). Evaluar la competencia aprender a aprender: una propuesta metodológica. Profesorado Revista de Currículum y Formación de Profesorado, 16(1), 103-123.

Martín Ortega, E. (2008). Aprender a aprender: clave para el aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida. Participación Educativa, 9, 72-78. https://doi.org/1886-5097.

Moreno Hernández, A. & Martín, E. (2007). The development of learning to learn in Spain. Curriculum Journal, 18(2), 175-193.

Ministerio de Seguridad de la Nación (2018). Manual de Competencias Cardinales para el Personal de las Fuerzas Policiales y de Seguridad. Resolución 324/2018. 

Ministerio de Seguridad de la Provincia de Buenos Aires (2016). Boletín informativo Nº 7, La Plata, viernes 29 de enero de 2016. Implementación de evaluación por competencia. 

Moccio, I. y Difabio, H. (2019). Autopercepción de competencia para aprender en estudiantes universitarios. Precisiones conceptuales y resultados empíricos. Psicopedagógica, 11(14), 32-76.

Muñoz-San Roque, I., Martín-Alonso, J. F., Prieto-Navarro, L. y Urosa-Sanz, B.             (2016). Autopercepción del nivel de desarrollo de la competencia de aprender a aprender en el contexto universitario: propuesta de un instrumento de evaluación. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 34(2), 369-383. https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.34.2.235881.

Núñez Naranjo, A. F., Becerra García, E. B., y Olalla Pardo, V. E. (2021). Autogestión del aprendizaje: Revisión de la literatura. Explorador Digital, 5(2), 6-22. https://doi.org/10.33262/exploradordigital.v5i2.1649

Panadero, E. (2017). Review of Self –Regulated Learning: Six Models and Four         Directions for Research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/422.10.3389/fpsyq.2017.00722.

Pozo, J. I. y Monereo i Font, C. (2010). Aprender a aprender: cuando los contenidos son el medio. Aula de Innovación educativa, 17(190), 35-37. 

Recomendación 2006/962/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo (18 de diciembre de 2006) sobre las competencias clave para el aprendizaje permanente [Diario Oficial L 394 de 30.12.2006]. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reco/2006/962 

Ruiz, M. C. (2014). La formación de las fuerzas de seguridad y policiales bajo el paradigma de la Seguridad Ciudadana: Un desafío educativo, nacional y regional. Revista Latinoamericana de Educación Comparada, 5(5), 122-133. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4766922

Salmerón, H. Y Gutiérrez, C. (2012). La competencia para aprender a aprender y el aprendizaje autorregulado. Posicionamientos Teóricos. Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 16(1), 5-13. http://www.ugr.es/~recfpro/rev161ART1.pdf. 

Salmerón, L. (2013). Actividades que promueven la transferencia de los aprendizajes: una revisión de la literatura1. Revista de Educación Extraordinario, 33-54. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2013-EXT-253

Singley, M. K. & Anderson, D. R. (1989). Transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge M.A & Press. 

Solé Sanosa, M. A.; Vilert Barnet, J. y Hernández Padial, M. (2003). La evaluación de competencias profesionales para el mando policial en el marco de los cursos de promoción de la Escuela de Policía de Cataluña. Revista Catalana de Seguretat Pública, (13), 175-179. 

Tedesco, J. C. (2011). Los desafíos de la educación básica en el siglo XXI. Revista Iberoamericana De Educación, 55, 31-47. https://doi.org/10.35362/rie550524 

Torrado, F., Fuentes, J. L. y Soria, M. (2017). Aprendizaje autorregulado: estado de la cuestión y retos psicopedagógicos. Perfiles educativos, 39(156), 160-173. https://doi.org/10.22201/iisue.24486167e.2017.156.58290 

Tuomi-Gröhn, T. & Engeström, Y. (2003). Conceptualizing transfer from standard    notions to developmental perspectives. En T. G. (Eds.) Between school and  work:  New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing (pp. 19-38). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Villardón-Gallego, L., Yániz, C., Achurra, C., Iraurgi, I. y Aguilar, M. C. (2013). La competencia para aprender en la universidad: desarrollo y validación de un instrumento de medida / Learning competence in university: development and structural validation of a scale to measure. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 18(2), 357-374. https://doi.org/10.1387/RevPsicodidacta6470

Villardón-Gallego, L. (2015). Competencias genéricas en educación superior. Metodologías específicas para su desarrollo. Narcea. 

Villegas Silva, E., Vásquez Aasifuen, M., Ramírez Paredes, K. A., Rojas Velásquez, A. J. y Villalobos Estela, F. A. (2016). La disciplina en las escuelas de Formación Policial.  Bagua –Perú. http://www.monografias.com.  el 27/06/21. 

Yániz, C. y Villardón, L. (2006). Planificar desde competencias para promover el aprendizaje: el reto de la sociedad del conocimiento para el profesorado universitario. Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. En M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.) Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7

Zimmerman, B., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Reliability and validity of self-efficacy for     learning form (SELF) scores of college students. ZeitschriftfürPsychologie / Journal of Psychology, 215(3), 157-163. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.215.3.157