The European Commission is taking the actions recommended in the European Council Recommendation on a comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning of languages, striving to modernize language teaching and to make it more efficient. (European Commission. About multilingualism policy).

Since 1990s special quality systems for language learning have been developed in the EU. In line with basic principles of the “White Paper” (1996) Lasnier has developed Quality Guide (Lasnier, 2003) for assuring quality in a language course; according to Rudzinska quality model for a single study course, quality is evaluated in three learning stages – goal setting, learning process and learning outcomes (Rudzinska, 2011). 

Innovation in language learning is the principle of the four strands, stating that a well balanced language course should devote equal attention to meaning focused input, meaning focused output, language focused learning, and fluency development (Nation, 2007). Nation emphasized that quality can be added by setting regular goals for amount and timing of learning, as well as for retrieval and variation in speaking and writing.

Another development, helping learners to enhance autonomy, is the use of language learning strategies (LLSU). In CARLA Center (Cohen, Oxford & Chi, 2009) was developed Language Learning Strategy Use Inventory (CARLA LLSU), consisting of four different language skill (listening, speaking, reading, writing), vocabulary development and translation strategy use. The purpose of the Inventory was to find out more about students as language learners and help them discover strategies helping master a new language

Numerous researches have provided evidence that more proficient learners employ a wider range of strategies more efficiently than less proficient learners (e.g. Green & Oxford, 1995; Lan & Oxford, 2003; Oxford, 1996; Oxford & Ehrman, 1995; Lee &Oxford, 2008). On the other hand, the study of Al-Buainain (2010) showed that proficiency and overall strategy use are not related.

The findings of Brunner (2002) study suggest including learning strategies into language courses in order to give learners greater opportunity to become self-regulated learners, increasing their autonomy. Brunner emphasized the teacher’s role to use language learning strategies in their teaching and see how it can help students improving their language proficiency. Nation (2001) points out that language learners through strategies can control their own learning without presence of a teacher.

CARLA LLSU Inventory has been widely applied in international contexts (Rudzinska, & Khampirat, 2019; Rudzinska & Khampirat, 2016; Rudzinska, & Khampirat, 2015; Cusen, 2005).  Rudzinska and Khampirat (2017) have performed Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) of the construct validity of a LLS Inventory, when applied to Information Technology (IT) students in Thailand. The results showed that to improve the model, the Translation Strategy had to be dropped out. The revised English LLS with five strategies was valid, and applicable. “Speaking Strategy Use” and “Listening Strategy Use” were confirmed to represent the most important strategies and vital skills to have and to develop. Cusen (2005) identified and classified vocabulary-learning strategies of Romanian English major and minor undergraduates, using Oxford learning strategies classification, founding that advanced learners seem to use almost all the types of strategies from Oxford framework.

In previous ECER Conference the authors have focused on the development of receptive language use – listening and reading - skills, finding the preferable strategy use by both country higher education institution students. Now we are devoted to researching productive language use – speaking and writing – skill development strategy use in both countries, because our belief is that the practice in two completely different cultures – Thailand and Latvia - might give us better understanding about our language learning drawbacks and strong points to raise the quality of our learner language learning. 

Participants To measure productive skill – speaking and writing, before using CARLA LLSU Inventory, we asked 2 groups (18 students) of a Latvian HEI students to brainstorm for 5 minutes, which language learning strategies they use, recording the answers. The participants for using the CARLA Inventory were 425 undergraduate students from two countries, 275 (64.71%) from Thailand and 150 (35.29%) from Latvia. Survey was carried out from the study year 2017/2018 to 2020/2021. From Thai students, 108 participants (39.27%) were male, 162 (58.91%) were female, 5 (1.82%) declined to state their gender; 214 (77.82%) majored in information technology field, 50 (18.18%) in Sports Science, 6 (2.18%) in Engineering, and 5 (1.82%) in Science. From Latvian students, 62 respondents (41.33%) were male, 82 (54.67%) were female, 6 did not state their gender. 110 (73.33%) majored in Sports Science, and 40 (26.66%) in Physiotherapy. Instruments Speaking strategies (SS) of the Inventory consisted of 18 items to assess 3 sub-strategies, “to practice speaking”, “to engage in conversation” and “for when I cannot think of a words or expression”. Writing strategies (WS), in their turn, comprised 10 items to assess 3 sub-strategies “for basic writing”, “for writing an essay or academic paper” and “to use after writing a draft of an essay or paper”. Each item was rated on a five-point Likert scale (1-5) from 1 (standing for: this strategy doesn’t fit for me) to 5 (standing for: I really like this strategy and use it often). The instrument was translated into the Thai language by one of the authors and one expert in English. Latvian students used the original questionnaire in English. Statistical analysis of the Inventory was performed with SPSS for Windows, Version 20. To assess the internal consistency and reliability of the scales, the Cronbach’s alpha was computed. Cronbach’s alpha for overall scales for Latvia was 0.92 and 0.93 or Thailand (90 items). Reliability for SS scale for Latvia and Thailand was 0.90 (18 items), and for WS scale for LV and Thailand was 0.86 (10 items). Further were computed and analyzed means (M), standard deviations (SD) of reading and writing scales and their sub-scales, min. and max. values of indicators, and their modes. To test whether there was statistically significant difference between the indicators of two countries was performed Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, showing the need to use nonparametric methods. Mann-Whitney test for two Independent samples was used to find statistical significance.

Qualitative analysis of Latvian student perceptive use of speaking strategies showed that students mostly used the following strategies: “using gestures, when not knowing the word”, “using translators”, “asking friends or someone, who might know”, “explaining with other words”. Descriptive statistics of the results, obtained in written survey, revealed that both Thai and Latvian students quite use the strategies. The Mann-Whitney test found significant difference between Thai and Latvian students in Speaking Strategy use, Thai students used “Speaking Strategies” (M = 2.93, SD = 0.63) more than Latvian students (M = 2.54, SD = 0.44), (z=-7,071, p < .001). Statistically significant differences were also found in all three sub-skills: “to practice speaking”, “to engage in conversation” and “for when I cannot think of a words or expression”. Thai students (M = 2.75, SD = 0.69) also Writing Strategies used more than Latvian students (M = 2.51, SD = 0.50), (z = -3.978, p < .001), as well sub-skills “for basic writing” and “to use after writing a draft of an essay or paper”. However, Thai students did not use sub-skill “for writing an essay or academic paper” (M = 2.73, SD = 0.77) statistically significantly more than Latvian students (M = 2.72, SD = 0.64), (z = -0,112, p= 0.911). We can conclude that academic writing is difficult for both country students; they need to use some strategies. Our results confirmed the fact that Thai students are always open to using speaking and writing strategies in learning English (Darasawang, 2007; Wiriyachitra, 2002), but they are still facing enormous difficulties in learning English (Wiriyachitra, 2002) that may contribute to student’s readiness to use a variety of speaking and writing strategies in everyday life. In Latvia, on the other hand, English is widespread, so there might be less need in applying varied LLS.

1.Al-Buainain, F. (2010). Language Learning Strategies Employed by English Majors at Qatar University: Questions and Queries. ASIATIC, 4 (2). 2.Brunner, T. L. (2002). Content area learning strategies to improve the learning of second language learners. Unpublished Master’s project, California State University, Sacramento. 3.Cohen, A. D., Oxford, R. L., & Chi, J. C. (2009). Language strategy use inventory, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA). Retrieved from http://carla.umn.edu/maxsa/documents/LanguageStrategyInventory_MAXSA_IG.pdf. 4.Murray, B. (2010). Students’ language learning strategy use and achievement in the Korean as a foreign language classroom, Foreign Language Annals, Volume 43, Issue 4, Winter 2010, p. 624–634. 5.Nation, I. S. P. (2007). The four strands. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 1-12. 6.Nation, I. S. P., & Yamamoto, A. (2012). Applying the four strands to language learning. International Journal of Innovation in English Language Teaching and Research, 1(2), 167-181 7.Nation, P. ( 2014). What do you need to know to learn a foreign language? School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies Victoria University of Wellington New Zealand. 8.Negari, G.M., Askani, S. (2014). The Effect of Explicit Instruction of Metacognitive Strategies on Reading Comprehension Among Iranian High School Students, Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM), Vol.4, Issue 3, pp. 19-30. 9.Rudzinska, I., & Khampirat, B. (2019). Cultural Diversity In English Language Learning In Thailand And Latvia. Journal of Education Culture and Society, 10(1), 219-233. https://doi.org/10.15503/jecs20191.219.233. 10.Rudzinska, I. & Khampirat, B. (2018). The variety of Language Learning Strategies Use in Thai and Latvian students, Presentation at EERA-ECER Conference, Bolzano, 4-7 Sept, 2018. 11.Rudzinska, I. & Khampirat, B. (2017). Construct Validation Of Language Learning Strategy Use Inventory, ECER 2017, University College UCC, Copenhagen, 22 - 25 Aug, 2017. 12.Rudzinska, I. & Khampirat, B. (2016). Factors Promoting and Impeding Qualitative Foreign Language Learning in Thai and Latvian HEI Students, ECER 2016, Dublin, Leading Education: The Distinct Contributions of Educational Research and Researchers, 23 - 26 Aug, 2016. 13.Rudzinska, I. & Khampirat, B. (2015). Learning Motivation Orientation and Learning Strategies In Thailand And Latvian Students, ECER 2015, Budapest. The European Conference on Educational Research „Education and Transition, Contributions from Educational Research”, 7 - 8 September 2015. 14.Rudzinska, I. (2011). Quality Management in the Formation of Student Professional Foreign Language Competence, PhD Thesis, University of Latvia.