## 4 Results  
The results shown here correspond to the pre- and post-test questionnaires. The four levels of complexity, based on the European Commission about the learning to learn competence [68], appear in the QR code (see Figure 3): I, first steps; II, going in the right direction; III, close to the target; and IV, full competence acquired. The results do not show the main differences in terms of the percentage depending on the academic course, group of students, or theme. We realize that the figures are very homogeneous.  
As we can see in Table 2, the ECPT considers that they exhibit level III for the four assessed dimensions (approximately 50%), close to the desirable level: 1, 146 = 56.59%; 2, 169 = 65.50%; 3, 147 = 56.98%; and 4, 128 = 49.61%. Dimension 2 (What I learn) is the one with the highest level of the four dimensions. Level IV (competence acquired), meanwhile, was the second most chosen level by the ECPT in three dimensions: 1, 52 = 20.16%; 2, 52 = 20.16%; and 3, 49 = 18.99%. In dimension 4, level IV was the third most chosen level: 30 = 11.63% (Table 2).  
In relation to the lower levels of I and II, their sum is below 40% of the total for the four levels. The maximum value of level I corresponds to the first dimension (29 = 11.24%), while in level II, it corresponds to dimension four (I reflect on my progress), with a value of 73 = 28.29%.  
The results of the post-test are presented in Table 3. The highest results of the four dimensions can be observed for level IV or the reference level. Level I is practically non-existent in the second and third dimensions, with 0.78% (n = 2) and 2.32% (n = 6), respectively; the other two variables do not reach 7% of the total responses. Level II also shows a large decrease (below 10%), being between 5.81% (n = 15) and 9.69% (n = 25) for the first and third variables.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Learning to Learn—Before** & **LEVEL I** & **LEVEL II** & **LEVEL III** & **LEVEL IV** \\ \hline
**1. Why I learn** & 29 & 31 & 146 & 52 \\
**2. What I learn** & 9 & 28 & 169 & 52 \\
**3. How I learn** & 23 & 39 & 147 & 49 \\
**4. I reflect on my progress** & 27 & 73 & 128 & 30 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Acquiring learning to learn competence (pre-test) by dimension and level of progression (n = 258).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Learning to Learn—After** & **LEVEL I** & **LEVEL II** & **LEVEL III** & **LEVEL IV** \\ \hline
**1. Why I learn** & 18 & 15 & 57 & 168 \\
**2. What I learn** & 2 & 21 & 91 & 144 \\
**3. How I learn** & 6 & 25 & 72 & 155 \\
**4. I reflect on my progress** & 14 & 22 & 29 & 193 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Acquiring learning to learn competence (post-test) by dimension and level of progression (n = 258).  
Level III (close to the target) was the second most chosen by the students for the four variables: 1, 57 = 22.09%; 2, 91 = 35.27%; 3, 72 = 27.91%; and 4, 29 = 11.24%. It surpassed the data of the previous levels (I and II). Finally, level IV obtained the best scores, since the evolution with respect to the pre-test is very noticeable for the four variables, mainly the last of them: 1, 168 = 65.12%; 2, 144 = 55.81%; 3, 155 = 60.08%; and 4, 193 = 74.81%. The most prominent dimension is 4 (I reflect on my progress).  
If we compare the pre- and post-test results, for levels I and II of the four dimensions, percentage variation is observed, especially for dimension 4 of level II (28.29% versus 8.53% = \(-\)19.76%). At level IV, an increase can be observed for all dimensions: 1, 65.12% versus 20.16% = +44.96%; 2, 55.81% versus 20.16% = +35.65%; 3, 60.08% versus 18.99% = +41.09%; and 4, 74.80% versus 11.63% = +63.17%.  
These self-perception data show the progress of the acquisition of competence after the experience carried out.