Iberica 13


IBÉRICA 18 [2009]: 153-170

Abstract
This paper examines how the language learning strategies that learners prefer in
learning professional language at tertiary level can be used for lifelong education.
It is well known that when learning a language learners use various learning
strategies, but not all learners are equally successful in their studies. This research
is based on the analysis of data obtained from two different surveys of learners’
preferred language learning strategies. Respondents spread over two levels of
English proficiency and their learning strategies are compared. Self-evaluation
and reflections on learning outcomes reveal how important or unimportant
various learning strategies are and which might be relevant to lifelong learning.
The study found that learners’ preferred individual strategies can be an effective
way to foster their motivation for self-development and, in the long run, lifelong
learning.

Key words: lifelong learning strategies, self-evaluation, reflective practice.

Resumen
Un enfoque complementario a las estrategias de aprendizaje Òpara toda la
vidaÓ

En el presente artículo se estudia cómo pueden utilizarse en la docencia que se
rige por el principio de “para toda la vida” las estrategias de aprendizaje
preferidas por los alumnos para el aprendizaje de la lengua extranjera aplicada a
contextos profesionales que se desarrolla a nivel universitario. Se tiene buena
constancia de que en el aprendizaje de lenguas los alumnos emplean distintas
estrategias de aprendizaje, pero no todos los aprendices muestran rendimientos
igualmente satisfactorios. La investigación que se describe en el presente trabajo
parte del análisis y la comparación de datos obtenidos mediante dos
cuestionarios relativos a las estrategias de aprendizaje preferidas por los
aprendices, que se reparten en dos niveles de aptitud lingüística. La

A complementary approach to lifelong
learning strategies
Galina Kavaliauskienė and Ligija Kaminskienė
Mykolas Romeris University & Vilnius University (Lithuania)
gkaval@mruni.lt & ligija@bmi.lt

153

09 IBERICA 18.qxp  15/9/09  16:59  Página 153



IBÉRICA 18 [2009]: 153-170

G. KAVALIAUSKIENĖ & L. KAMINSKIENĖ

autoevaluación y la reflexión sobre los resultados de aprendizaje demuestran la
mayor o menor importancia de distingas estrategias de aprendizaje  así como su
pertinencia dentro del concepto de aprendizaje “para toda la vida”. Asimismo,
del estudio se desprende que las estrategias individuales preferidas por los
aprendices pueden constituir una técnica eficaz para fomentar la motivación con
vistas al auto-desarrollo y, a largo plazo, el aprendizaje “para toda la vida”.

Palabras clave: estrategias de aprendizaje para toda la vida, autoevaluación,
práctica reflexiva.

Introduction
The important part of education is learning how to learn. One of the
objectives of a language course is to teach learners how to continue learning
the language independently after the course has ended. The second valid
point is the ability to evaluate the effectiveness of one’s own performance in
a foreign language which is an important skill of critical thinking. The third
valid point is the ability to use high technology for the benefit of effective
learning. Training learners in using strategies of effective learning such as
self-monitoring and self-assessing is invaluable in attaining teaching goals.
Fostering learner strategies of effective learning is a factor for successful
lifelong self-development.

To ensure effective language learning, language teachers must make
professional decisions about methodology and techniques to be used.
Decisions made during language instruction depend on various factors,
among which the most important are the needs of the individual learner, the
goals of the course, learner preferences and attitudes to the importance of
various language skills.

This paper addresses the issues of learners’ preferred strategies for language
learning. Research implications might be beneficial for fostering sustainable
lifelong learning. The major indicators of lifelong learning are the same as
learning strategies and include learners’ self-evaluation, learner reflections on
one’s achievements or failures, personal organizer, or portfolio, e-learning,
strategy training, learner autonomy and creativity in all learning activities.
Learners self-evaluation, reflections, application of electronic portfolio and
training learners in developing awareness of their learning strategies have
been used in this study.

This article consists of the background review, which includes lifelong

154

09 IBERICA 18.qxp  15/9/09  16:59  Página 154



learning, learning strategies, and strategy training, followed by the
description of respondents and research methods, the results, discussion,
conclusions, and references.

Background

Lifelong learning

Lifelong learning is a philosophy implying that it is never too late for learning
and that learning is a continuous process to be achieved through the life span
of an individual (European Commission, 2001a). As Räisänen and Fortanet-
Gómez (2008: 6) point out, “life-long learning is fast becoming a household
word in the European sphere of education”. Lifelong learning encompasses
learning for personal, civic and social purposes as well as for employment. It
takes place in a variety of environments in and outside the formal education
and training systems. Lifelong learning implies raising investment in people
and knowledge; promoting the acquisition of basic skills, including digital
literacy; and broadening opportunities for innovative, more flexible forms of
learning. The aim is to provide people of all ages with equal and open access
to high-quality learning opportunities, and to a variety of learning
experiences. Institutions of higher education have a key role to play in
making this vision a reality. The European Union Commission stresses the
need for Member States to transform formal education and training systems
in order to break down barriers between different forms of learning
(European Commission, 2006). In this sense:

The recommendation to foster learning-to-learn skills so that learners may
continue developing their linguistic competencies during (and after leaving)
formal education is permanently put forward as an issue closely link to the
lifelong-learning philosophy. (Bocanegra-Valle, 2008: 214)

Language learning is a lifelong activity, for which the European Commission
identifies the following specific objectives (European Commission, 2001b):
1. learning of a mother tongue plus two other languages; 2. language learning
in secondary education and training; 3. language learning in higher
education; 4. language learning among adults; 5. encouragement for language
learning by learners with special needs; 6. development of a wide range of
languages. The action plan of language learning proposes teaching a subject
through a foreign language, which would enable learners to use their

A COMPLEMENTARY APPROACH

IBÉRICA 18 [2009]: 153-170 155

09 IBERICA 18.qxp  15/9/09  16:59  Página 155



language skills directly. Language learning in higher education envisages
promoting multilingualism. All learners should study abroad for at least one
term and should gain an accepted language qualification as part of their
degree course.

According to the European Commission, the main indicators of lifelong
learning are learner autonomy, learners’ reflections on learning, self-
evaluation, the application of Information Communication Technology
–i.e., e-learning, creativity and use of portfolio. More specifically, the
European Report on Quality Indicators of Lifelong Learning (European
Commission, 2002) describes fifteen indicators classified into four areas:

1) the “skills, competencies, and attitudes area” contains literacy,
numeracy, new skills for the learning society, learning-to-learn
skills, active citizenship skills, and cultural and social skills;

2) the “access and participation area” contains access to lifelong
learning and participation in lifelong learning;

3) the “resources for lifelong learning area” contains investment in
lifelong learning, educators and learning, and ICT (information
and communications technology) in learning; and 

4) the “strategies and system development area” contains strategies
for lifelong learning, coherence of supply, guidance and
counselling, accreditation and certification, and quality assurance.

There is a variety of widely implemented methods that help people learn
successfully such as accelerated learning techniques, assessment alternatives,
cooperative learning, learning styles, multiple intelligences, application of
technology, etc. The role of technology in lifelong learning has become
particularly important.

Learning strategies

The notion of learning strategies was intuitively appealing to researchers and
it was embraced with enthusiasm by language teachers, although “there is a
lack of an unambiguous theoretical definition of the learning strategy
construct, and most of the relevant literature in the L2 field pretends that
with regard of learning strategies everything is more or less okay” (Dörnyei,
2005: 169). According to Dörnyei (2005), the definitions of learning
strategies offered in the L2 literature are rather inconsistent and elusive.

G. KAVALIAUSKIENĖ & L. KAMINSKIENĖ

IBÉRICA 18 [2009]: 153-170156

09 IBERICA 18.qxp  15/9/09  16:59  Página 156



The initial research generated two well-known taxonomies of language
learning strategies: the first one by Oxford (1990), and the second one by
O’Malley and Chamot (1990). Oxford’s taxonomy consisted of six strategies:
cognitive, memory, metacognitive, compensation, affective, and social.
Metacognition refers to thinking about cognition or reasoning about one’s
own thinking. Most definitions of metacognition include both knowledge
and strategy components. Metacognition is often referred to as “thinking
about thinking” and can be used to help learners “learn how to learn”.
Metacognition has been linked with intelligence and it has been shown that
those with greater metacognitive abilities tend to be more successful
thinkers.

O’Malley and Chamot (1990) carried out extensive research into learning
strategies by means of the Cognitive Academic Language Learning
Approach which is based on findings in cognitive psychology and is
concerned with how knowledge is acquired, stored, and retrieved. L2
learners use three main types of strategies: 1. metacognitive strategy, which
involves planning and thinking about learning, its monitoring, and evaluating
learning outcomes; 2. cognitive strategy, which involves conscious ways of
tackling learning, i.e. note-taking, resourcing (using various resources like
books, dictionaries, etc.), and elaboration – relating new information to old;
3. social strategy, which means learning by interacting with other people.
Interestingly, in their research usage of metacognitive strategies accounted
for 30% of the learners’ choice, cognitive strategy was used by 53% of the
learners, and social strategy equalled 17%. It should be noted that the type
of strategy varies according to the task the learners are engaged in and
learners’ language level. Learning strategies can be identified by
administering scientifically sound surveys to learners, and learners should be
taught to use different strategies, so that acquired strategies can be
transferred to new tasks and subjects.

According to Dörnyei (2005), compensation strategy refers to
communication, which is related to language use rather than language learning.
Nevertheless, Oxford’s (1990) strategy system is highly compatible with
O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) system, if communication strategies are
excluded, and social / affective strategies are separated. The resulting
typology comprises the following four main components (Dörnyei, 2005): 1)
cognitive strategies, involving the manipulation and transformation of the
learning materials; 2) metacognitive strategies, involving higher order
strategies aimed at analyzing, monitoring, evaluating and organizing one’s

A COMPLEMENTARY APPROACH

IBÉRICA 18 [2009]: 153-170 157

09 IBERICA 18.qxp  15/9/09  16:59  Página 157



own learning process; 3) social strategies, involving interpersonal behaviors
aimed at increasing the amount of L2 communication and practice
interaction with native speakers, cooperating with peers; 4) affective
strategies, involving control of the emotional conditions and experiences.

According to Cook (1996), good language learners are: 1. those who find a
learning style that suits them; 2. those that involve themselves in the language
learning process; 3. those that develop an awareness of language as a system
and as a communication; 4. those that pay constant attention to expanding
language knowledge; 5. those that take into account the demands that L2
learning imposes.

In the recent years there has been considerable interest in the role of
reflection in higher education. Research on language learning strategies
investigates the feasibility of helping learners become more effective
language learners by teaching them learning strategies (Chamot, 2004). The
most valuable way to promote a change of attitude alongside the acquisition
of skills is encourage the learners to reflect on what they are doing and why.
The promotion of learner reflection remains one of the main benefits of
alternative assessment (Coombi & Barlow, 2004). Ability to reflect, learning
strategies and learners’ attitudes are important aspects of learner autonomy
that can lay the foundations for lifelong learning (Tomlinson (ed.), 1998).

Active learning in higher education presupposes the ability to think critically,
analyze and solve problems, use Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) competently. Critical thinking skills are not likely to
develop spontaneously and need to be improved and trained in English
classes (Ustunluoglu, 2004). Language learners need to explore different
learning strategies, experimenting and evaluating, and eventually choosing
their own set of effective strategies.

The study of learner strategies indicates discrepancies between learner and
teacher perceptions of language learning strategy use (Griffiths & Parr,
2001). Learners rank social strategies as the most frequent, followed by
metacognitive, compensation, cognitive, affective, and memory (the least
frequent). Teachers’ beliefs are different, i.e. memory strategies are the most
frequent, followed by cognitive, social, metacognitive, compensation, and
affective (the least frequent). Griffiths and Parr (2001) claim that it is
possible that some of the discrepancies may be due to differing
interpretations of the strategy groupings.

The possible implications of learning strategies for teaching are: language

G. KAVALIAUSKIENĖ & L. KAMINSKIENĖ

IBÉRICA 18 [2009]: 153-170158

09 IBERICA 18.qxp  15/9/09  16:59  Página 158



learners need to explore different learning strategies, experimenting and
evaluating, and eventually choosing their own set of effective strategies.

It should be emphasized that learning strategies have never been explicitly
rejected by teachers. However the concept of learning strategies is
considered to be unfruitful for research purposes and the notion of self-
regulation is thought to be a more dynamic concept because it refers to
multidimensional construct, including cognitive, metacognitive,
motivational, behavioral and environmental processes (Dörnyei, 2005).
Learning strategy is only one component of self-regulation which consists of
a long list: goal setting, strategic planning, monitoring, metacognition, time
management, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, intrinsic interest,
evaluation and self-reflection, feedback, etc. This complex construct of self-
regulation still needs to be researched.

Strategy training

The notion of learning to learn in L2 studies has a history of over three
decades. Strategy training is defined as the explicit teaching of how, when,
and why learners should employ language learning strategies to enhance their
efforts at reaching language program goals (Chen, 2007). Since the 1970s,
researchers have addressed the need for strategy training in response to the
lack of learners’ awareness of the cognitive tools and strategies available to
them. Evaluation of strategy training concerns the changes in learner
behavior from the perspectives of task improvement, strategy maintenance,
and strategy transfer. The impact of strategy training on the learner not only
leads to the improvement of language proficiency, but also engages with the
learners’ internal changes in the learning process. The theoretical model
(Chen, 2007) illustrates the relationship among the dimensions and
categories of the changes in the participants’ learning processes and
emphasizes the need for balancing all the criteria that may contribute to
successful learning. Strategy training frameworks aim to achieve the
following goals (Dörnyei, 2005: 178):

to raise learners’ awareness about learning strategies; to encourage strategy
use; to offer a number of relevant strategies for learners to choose from; to
offer controlled practice in the use of strategies; to provide an analysis for
students’ to reflect on their strategy use.

It is claimed that the ultimate goal of strategy training is to empower learners
by allowing them to take control of the language learning process (Cohen,

A COMPLEMENTARY APPROACH

IBÉRICA 18 [2009]: 153-170 159

09 IBERICA 18.qxp  15/9/09  16:59  Página 159



1998). However, some researchers caution teachers against investing too
much effort into strategy training as this is not likely to be cost-effective,
while proponents of strategy training claim that there is enough positive
evidence to justify further work in this area (Dörnyei, 2005).

Most studies evaluating the effectiveness of strategy training for second
language learners have quantitatively measured improvements in their test
scores following the completion of strategy training. Chen (2007) argues that
the evaluation methods must be supplemented by a qualitative analysis of
the impact that strategy training has on the learning process; he contributes
a theoretical model that illustrates the relationship among changes in
participants learning processes and four dimensions for evaluation criteria,
namely, the observable changes in learners’ behavior, changes in their
learning process, strategy changes in approach to study a foreign language,
and general changes in attitudes towards language learning.

A number of models for teaching learning strategies agree on the
importance of developing learners’ metacognitive understanding of the
value of learning strategies. In Cohen’s (1998) model, teachers act as a
diagnostician, language learner, learner trainer, coordinator and coach. In the
model suggested by Grenfell and Harris (1999), teachers raise awareness,
discuss value of strategies, give learners practice, set goals, choose
appropriate strategies to attain goals, and, finally, teacher and learners
evaluate success of action plan.

There are three current models for language learning strategy instruction:
SSBI Model (Cohen, 1998), Grenfell and Harris’ (1999) model, and CALLA
Model (Chamot, 2005). All these identify learners’ current learning strategies
through activities such as completing questionnaires, engaging in discussions
about familiar tasks, and reflecting on strategies used after performing a task.
All the models suggest that the teacher should demonstrate the new strategy.
Moreover, current models are based on developing learners’ knowledge
about their own thinking and strategic processes at the same time learners’
are encouraged to adopt strategies that will improve their language learning
and proficiency.

Learners are often unable to transfer learning strategies to new tasks;
therefore, learners should be taught and trained to apply learning strategies
and become aware of themselves as learners, which is essential to the
development of autonomy and, in the end, to the use of lifelong learning
strategies in the future. Transfer of strategies can increase significantly if

G. KAVALIAUSKIENĖ & L. KAMINSKIENĖ

IBÉRICA 18 [2009]: 153-170160

09 IBERICA 18.qxp  15/9/09  16:59  Página 160



teachers help learners understand their own learning processes. The issue of
transfer has not been sufficiently investigated. Differences were found
between high attaining and low attaining learners: high achievers used more
metacognitive strategies and were making transfers while low achievers failed
to use strategies (Harris, 2003).

Aim, respondents and methods  
The aim of the research is to identify what strategies of language learning
can be beneficial to lifelong learning.

The respondents were the full-time learners who study either psychology or
social work at tertiary level. There were 90 participants altogether. The
respondents were predominantly females between 19 and 22 years old.
Learners were spread over two English course levels: pre-intermediate and
upper-intermediate according to their score on the Oxford Placement Test
at the beginning of the course. The amount of time spent in foreign
language environment was 4 hours a week for 3 semesters.

The most frequent and efficient method for identifying learners’ learning
strategies is through self-reported data like questionnaires, interviews or
diaries. This research used a real classroom situation to study learners’
language learning strategy use. Two sets of the Strategy Inventory were used.
The first questionnaire was based on O’Malley and Chamot (1990) and
McCoy (2006), who used a modified questionnaire which grouped language
learning strategies (under metacognitive, cognitive and social-affective). The
obtained data are presented below. However, probably due to some
uncertainty over strategy grouping, our results differ from similar research
into strategies of learners at tertiary level (Suchanova & Sliogerinė, 2006).
For this reason, a different type of Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning (Oxford, 1990), which is based on learners’ opinions, has been
used. First, learners worked through the above mentioned questionnaire,
then - the Strategy Inventory version by Oxford (1990) was applied. Finally,
following the brainstorming stage1 of language learning strategies, learners
contributed their own ideas on the most important learning strategies. As a
result, a new questionnaire was designed. It contains 16 items and appears to
be similar in form and some of the content to that reported by Griffiths
(2007), although the latter is twice as long (32 items).

A COMPLEMENTARY APPROACH

IBÉRICA 18 [2009]: 153-170 161

09 IBERICA 18.qxp  15/9/09  16:59  Página 161



Results and discussion
The basic instruments for the current study were the surveys on identifying
learners’ strategies in learning English for Specific Purposes (ESP). The
statements of the Strategy Inventory are presented in Table 1 and are taken
after O’Malley and Chamot (1990), and McCoy (2006).

The questions of the first survey are reproduced in the Appendix. This is a
self-scoring survey which consists of statements, to which learners
responded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). The 12 items of the survey are divided into four groups:
metacognitive strategies (relating to how learners manage their learning),
cognitive strategies (relating to how learners think about their learning),
social strategies (involving learners by communication with peers), and
affective strategies (relating to learners’ emotions). Since social and affective
strategies are often interrelated they are often combined (McCoy, 2006).

Metacognitive strategies Positive responses Negative
responses Uncertain responses

The results of the learners’ positive, negative and uncertain responses (Table
1) show quite an unexpected outcome, i.e. there are no significant
preferences in learning strategies. In other words, positive, negative, and

G. KAVALIAUSKIENĖ & L. KAMINSKIENĖ

IBÉRICA 18 [2009]: 153-170162

COMPLEMENTARY APPROACH

Metacognitive strategies Positive
responses

Negative
responses

Uncertain
responses

Advanced organizer 78% 12% 10%

Selective attention 75% 10% 15%
Self-management 80% 15% 5%

Self-monitoring and evaluation 70% 10% 20%
Delayed production 70% 10% 20%

Average 75% 11% 14%

Cognitive   strategies Positive
responses

Negative
responses

Uncertain
responses

Repetition 75% 10% 15%

Resourcing 80% 10% 10%
Translation 80% 10% 10%

Inference 75% 10% 15%
Average 78% 10% 12%

Social / affective strategies Positive
responses

Negative
responses

Uncertain
responses

Clarification 75% 10% 15%

Cooperation (pair work) 80% 10% 10%
Participation (group discussions) 75% 5% 20%
Assistance 82% 8% 10%

Average 78% 8% 14%

Table 1. The findings of the survey on the use of metacognitive, cognitive, and social / affective strategies
(O’Malley & Chamot, 1990, and McCoy, 2006).

The results of the learners’ positive, negative and uncertain responses (Table 1)

show quite an unexpected outcome, i.e. there are no significant preferences in

learning strategies. In other words, positive, negative, and uncertain responses

are almost the same within the error limits: social/affective strategies equal 78%,

cognitive 78%, and metacognitive 75%. Contrary to our data, in the earlier paper

by Griffiths and Parr (2001) learners ranked metacognitive strategies as the most

frequent language learning strategies (6 on a scale from 6 to 1) while cognitive

and affective strategies are less frequent (3 and 2, respectively). However, in a

more recent article Griffiths (2007) claims that many strategy items in Oxford’s

typology can be included in more than one group and, thus, the data might be

inconclusive. Moreover, some items such as consulting a dictionary were not

included in the previous studies of various authors (Griffiths, 2007). For this

reason, it is expedient to find out what strategies learners prefer to use in

mastering their language skills.

09 IBERICA 18.qxp  15/9/09  16:59  Página 162



uncertain responses are almost the same within the error limits:
social/affective strategies equal 78%, cognitive 78%, and metacognitive 75%.
Contrary to our data, in the earlier paper by Griffiths and Parr (2001)
learners ranked metacognitive strategies as the most frequent language
learning strategies (6 on a scale from 6 to 1) while cognitive and affective
strategies are less frequent (3 and 2, respectively). However, in a more recent
article Griffiths (2007) claims that many strategy items in Oxford’s typology
can be included in more than one group and, thus, the data might be
inconclusive. Moreover, some items such as consulting a dictionary were not
included in the previous studies of various authors (Griffiths, 2007). For this
reason, it is expedient to find out what strategies learners prefer to use in
mastering their language skills.

As it has already been mentioned, we have conducted investigation into
learners’ preferred learning strategies by brainstorming the issue and
generating a different type of survey. A newly designed questionnaire took
into account learners’ reflections on their learning strategies.

This Strategy Inventory consists of 16 items and is reproduced in Table 2.
Learners were asked how often they used the strategy items, using a 5-point
Likert scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). This new Strategy Inventory was
completed by 90 learners who were spread over two basic English for
Specific Purposes levels: Pre-Intermediate (PI, 50 learners) and Upper-
Intermediate (UI, 40 learners). The results in Table 2 include the Mean
values (M) of learners’ responses and the Standard Deviations (SD).

To determine a degree of freedom df, we subtracted 40 minus 1 (39), and 50
minus 1 (49), and added these two results together, i.e. df = 39 + 49 = 88.
So there were 88 degrees of freedom for these two samples. When we
checked the t-value in the theoretical statistics Table of Critical Values
(Brown & Rodgers, 2002) for the t-test statistic, we had to check in the row
which strategy shows 88 degrees of freedom to decide whether the
difference between the means was significant or not. If the exact df was not
shown in the Table of Critical Values, we took the closest value below it in
order to be conservative. In our case it was 60, and in that row the critical
value for tc at the .01 level of significance (two-tailed) was 2.660 (or t = 2.000
at the .05 level of significance). If the calculated t-value is greater than the
critical value tc found in the Table of Critical Values at .01 or .05, it means
that there is a significant difference between two groups. The right-hand side
column of Table 2 displays the values of computed p which indicates

A COMPLEMENTARY APPROACH

IBÉRICA 18 [2009]: 153-170 163

09 IBERICA 18.qxp  15/9/09  16:59  Página 163



whether there is a significance difference between learners’ responses. Such
p values are shown in italics in Table 2. Therefore, in such cases it may be
concluded that learners with higher value of Means are better at using a
particular language learning strategy. However, the p values between 0.138
and 0.614 in Table 2 show that the Mean values for both groups can be
interpreted as statistically close, i.e., there is no significant difference between
groups in using these learning strategies.

G. KAVALIAUSKIENĖ & L. KAMINSKIENĖ

IBÉRICA 18 [2009]: 153-170164

No Statement PI level: 50
learners,

Mean values
(M)

PI level:
Standard

Deviations (SD)

UI level: 40
learners, Mean

values (M)

UI level:
Standard

Deviations
(SD)

Two-tailed
significance

level
(p)

1 Homework

assignments

3.62 0.75 3.92 0.76 0.064

2 Pair work in class 3.73 0.64 3.83 0.79 0.510
3 Use of

online/paper
dictionary

3.82 0.51 4.11 0.49 0.008

4 Listening practice
in class

3.91 0.83 3.82 0.85 0.614

5 Revision of tenses 3.85 0.67 3.75 0.77 0.512
6 Learning ESP

vocabulary
3.95 0.85 3.80 0.92 0.425

7 Doing linguistic

computer tasks

3.27 0.80 3.04 0.85 0.191

8 Watching
authentic TV films

3.23 0.92 3.51 0.83 0.138

9 Revision of ESP

materials

3.11 0.80 3.36 0.75 0.134

10 Talking to native
English speakers

3.24 0.75 3.67 0.76 0.009

11 Listening to

English podcasts

3.85 0.62 4.12 0.78 0.071

12 Writing entries to
weblogs

3.85 0.62 4.14 0.78 0.053

13 Analyzing one’s

own mistakes

3.63 0.75 3.95 0.76 0.049

14 Time spent on
studying English

3.44 0.70 3.63 0.74 0.216

15 Learning phrasal

verbs

3.82 0.50 4.12 0.48 0.007

16 Translation from
L1 to L2 and vice
versa

3.67 0.50 4.15 0.49 0.005

Table 2. Mean responses, Standard Deviations, and computed two-tailed significance levels p.
(“PI” means Pre-Intermediate level, and “UI” stands for Upper-Intermediate level).

09 IBERICA 18.qxp  15/9/09  16:59  Página 164



It is hardly expedient to rank these strategies into metacognitive,
compensation, cognitive, affective, social, and memory groups, in the same
way as many researchers have used before –basically because some of them
overlap. The most important result is the types of strategies that learners
find beneficial to mastering their language skills. Another important point is
the comparison of strategy use at different levels of proficiency. As it can be
seen, some strategies are more significant at either higher or lower level of
proficiency. Learners’ individual differences outline the virtues and benefits
of particular strategy use. The preferential use of certain strategies implies
that learners might rely on them in the future –when the need for language
refinement emerges.

Individual interviews with learners reveal that learners believe in the
importance of translation from L1 into L2 and vice versa, listening to
authentic English and use of dictionary in order to keep learning language
in the future, after the course has finished.

As a matter of interest it is worth mentioning that the coefficient of
Cronbach’s Alpha, which is a coefficient of reliability or consistency of the
data, has also been computed. The formula for the standardized Cronbach’s
Alpha is ∝ = (N · r) / (1 + (N -1) · r, here N is equal to the number of items
and r-bar is the average inter-term correlation among the items. A reliability
coefficient Alpha of .70 or higher is considered acceptable in most Social
Science research situations. In our case, N = 90 and two variables (two
groups of different proficiency levels) the value Alpha is equal to .87 and
shows high reliability of the presented data.

Learners’ reflections
Initially, many learners found the request to reflect on their learning a novel
experience. Moreover, some of them did not feel that self-evaluation is
supportive to their learning. It should be emphasized that reflections are
difficult for learners and may be even superficial because they include the
ability to evaluate oneself critically. Nevertheless, impartial reflections usually
lead to self-knowledge, which is fundamental to learner development, and
are employed as a means of monitoring one’s own learning.

Some researchers  (Kuit, Reay & Freeman, 2001) claim that reflection works
best in collaboration with others, which is true for the academic staff, but
questionable for learners, who are very sensitive about losing face. Our

A COMPLEMENTARY APPROACH

IBÉRICA 18 [2009]: 153-170 165

09 IBERICA 18.qxp  15/9/09  16:59  Página 165



research into learners’ reflections included an open-ended survey on their
achievements in various class activities including tests and written work
(Kavaliauskienė et.al., 2007). The quality of learners’ reflections can be
summarized as follows:

1) learners seem to find it easy to carry out reflections on what they
did and how they did it, i.e., the difficulty or ease in their
performance;

2) learners assess their own strengths and weaknesses realistically by
exploring experiences and formulating ways for improvement;

3) learners are open about preferences, abilities, awareness of
achievements, willingness to perfect knowledge and skills.

The effectiveness of reflective strategy depends on the reflective activities
and the commitment of the individuals who carry them out. For teachers,
learners’ reflective responses are challenging because they stimulate staff to
re-evaluate their teaching.

Conclusions and implications
Learners believe that in order to improve their language skills in the future,
it is useful to employ such learning strategies as translation from L1 into L2
and vice versa, use of dictionary with the aim of learning an accurate
meaning of the word and its usage, and habitual listening to authentic
English. Learners’ attitudes to various learning strategies essentially differ
due to their individual differences.

Learning strategies constitute a useful tool for active learning, promote
learner autonomy and prompt proficiency. Due to the benefits and virtues of
learning strategies learners increase the effectiveness of learning and extend
their knowledge of “know how to learn”. Such knowledge lays down
foundations to lifelong learning which is essential for every person in the
21st century.

The main implications of this study for teachers are to monitor learner’s
individual differences and achievements, encourage learners’ reflective
practice, and obtain feedback on the best learning strategies for a particular
learner. The implementation of this unconventional approach to teaching a

G. KAVALIAUSKIENĖ & L. KAMINSKIENĖ

IBÉRICA 18 [2009]: 153-170166

09 IBERICA 18.qxp  15/9/09  16:59  Página 166



unique person rather than a class of very similar people might enhance
learning motivation and justify teacher’s efforts for improving teaching
quality.

Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to the recently demised Dr. Romualdas Juozas
Kavaliauskas for his invaluable assistance with the application of statistical
software to process the experimental findings.

(Revised paper received December 2008)

References

A COMPLEMENTARY APPROACH

IBÉRICA 18 [2009]: 153-170 167

Bocanegra-Valle, A. (2008). “Learning to learn in
ESP. Fostering lifelong learning in European higher
education under Bologna requirements” in I.
Fortanet-Gómez & C. Räisänen (eds.), 213-232.

Brown, J.D. & T. Rodgers. (2002). Doing Second
Language Research. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Chamot, A.U. (2004). “Issues in language learning
strategy research and teaching”. Electronic Journal
of Foreign Language Teaching 1: 14-26.

Chamot, A.U. (2005). “The cognitive academic
language learning approach (CALLA)” in P.A.
Richard Amato & M.A. Snow (eds.), Academic
Success for Language Learners, 87-101. New
York: Longman.

Chen, Y. (2007). “Learning to learn: the impact of
strategy training”. ELT Journal 61: 20-29.

Cohen, A.D. (1998). Strategies in Learning and
Using a Second Language. New York: Longman.

Cook, V. (1996). Second Language Learning and
Language Teaching. London: Arnold.

Coombi, Ch. & L. Barlow. (2004). “The reflective
Portfolio”. English Teaching Forum, 42: 18-23.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the
Language Learner. Individual Differences in
Second Language Acquisition. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

European Commission (2001a). European Area of
Lifelong Learning. URL: http://europa.eu/legis-
lation_summaries/education_training_youth/lifelon
g_learning/c11054_en.htm [28/06/09].

European Commission (2001b). Action plan on
Adult Learning – It’s never too late to learn. URL:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/education_
training_youth/lifelong_learning/c11102_en.htm
[29/06/09].

European Commission (2002). European Report
on Quality Indicators of Lifelong Learning. URL:
http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pfdReport.pdf
[30/06/09]

European Commission (2006). Lifelong Learning
Programme 2007-2013. URL:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/education_
training_youth/lifelong_learning/c11082_en.htm
[29/06/09].

Fortanet-Gómez, I. & C. Räisänen (eds.) (2008).
ESP in European Higher Education. Integrating
Language and Content. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.

Grenfell, M. & V. Harris (1999). Modern Language
and Learning Strategies: In Theory and Practice.
London: Routledge.

Griffiths, C. (2007). “Language learning strategies:
students’ and teachers’ perceptions”. ELT Journal
61: 91-99.

Griffiths, C. &  M. Parr. (2001). “Language-learning
strategies: theory and perception”. ELT Journal 55:
247-254.

Harris, V. (2003). “Adapting classroom-based
strategy instruction to a distance learning context”.
TESL-EJ 7/2.  URL: http://www-writing.berkeley.
edu/TESL-EJ/ej26/a1.html [22/06/09].

09 IBERICA 18.qxp  15/9/09  16:59  Página 167



Kavaliauskienė, G., L. Kaminskienė & L. Anusienė.
(2007). “Reflective practice: Assessment of
assignments in English for Specific Purposes”.
Ibérica 14: 149-166. 

Kuit, J.A., G. Reay & R. Freeman. (2001).
“Experiences of reflective teaching”. Active
Learning in Higher Education 2: 128-142.

McCoy, D. (2006). “Utilizing students’ preferred
language learning strategies for IELTS test
preparation”. EA Journal 23: 3-13.

O’Malley, J.M. & A. Chamot (1990). Strategies
Used by Second Language Learners. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language Learning
Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know.

New York: Newbury House.

Räisänen, C. & I. Fortanet-Gómez (2008).
“Introduction. English for Specific Purposes after
the Bologna reform” in I. Fortanet-Gómez & C.
Räisänen (eds.), 1-7. 

Suchanova, J. & J. Sliogerienė (2006).
“Metakognityvinės taktikos ir strategijos itaka
uzsienio kalbos mokymosi rezultatams”. Santalka
14: 45-53.

Tomlinson, B. (ed.) (1998). Materials Development
in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Ustunluoglu, E. (2004). “Language teaching
through critical thinking and self-awareness”.
English Teaching Forum 42: 2-7.

G. KAVALIAUSKIENĖ & L. KAMINSKIENĖ

IBÉRICA 18 [2009]: 153-170168

Dr. Galina Kavaliauskienė currently lectures at Mykolas Romeris
University, Lithuania, where she is an Associate professor at the Department
of Foreign Languages. Her research fields include various aspects of ESP.
Her recent publications deal with learner assessment and self-assessment,
paper and electronic portfolios, quality of teaching and learning, good
practice in teaching speaking and listening skills, mother tongue and
translation in ESP, quality integration  in teaching/learning ESP.

Dr. Ligija Kaminskienė is a professor at the Department of Translation
and Interpreting Studies of the Faculty of Philology at Vilnius University,
Lithuania. Her research fields include intertextual relations in translation,
methods of teaching English for Specific Purposes, also EU policies on
foreign language teaching and development of transferable skills at
university level.

NOTES
1 The idea of brainstorming in English classes has been known for years. It implies the discussion of a
theme (topic) by learners who eventually generate new ideas, suggestions or notions. In our settings, the
brainstorming stage of language learning strategies aimed at finding out what learning strategies,
according to learner beliefs, might be or have been useful to each of them.

ˇ

ˇ

09 IBERICA 18.qxp  15/9/09  16:59  Página 168



Appendix. Survey of learners’ metacognitive, cognitive and
social/affective strategies –based on O’Malley and Chamot (1990),
and McCoy (2006).

No

A COMPLEMENTARY APPROACH

IBÉRICA 18 [2009]: 153-170 169

G. KAVALIAUSKIEN  & L. KAMINSKIEN 

IBÉRICA 18 (2009): …-…16

Appendix. Survey of learners’ metacognitive, cognitive and 

social/affective strategies –based on O’Malley and Chamot (1990),

and McCoy (2006).

No Specification Strategies

METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES

1 Advanced organizer Review materials and prepare for classes
2 Selective attention Focus on a specific language point at a time
3 Self- management Arrange the best learning environment
4 Self-monitoring& evaluation Correction and identification of one’s errors

5 Delayed production Learn by listening, reluctant to talk

COGNITIVE STRATEGIES

6 Repetition Imitation of other people’s speech
7 Resourcing Use of dictionary or reference books
8 Translation Use of translation in learning

9 Inference Guess the meaning from context

SOCIAL /AFFECTIVE STRATEGIES

10 Clarification Ask for clarification of unknown words
11 Cooperation (pair work) Active in pair work
12 Participation Active in group discussions
13 Assistance Help others and  their help in learning

09 IBERICA 18.qxp  15/9/09  16:59  Página 169