A recurrent theme in research on learning in higher education revolves around the role of learning strategies in studying, adapting to new challenges and continuing to learn (Biwer et al., 2020; Huet et al., 2008). Within this framework, there is a certain consensus that university students need to develop: i)  the ability to gather and interpret relevant data (usually within their field of study) to inform judgments that include reflection on relevant social, scientific or ethical issues; ii) communicate information, ideas, problems and solutions to both specialist and non-specialist audiences (postgraduate level) and communicate their conclusions, the knowledge and rationale, to specialist and non-specialist audiences clearly and unambiguously (postgraduate level); and iii) have developed those learning skills that are necessary for them to continue to undertake further study with a higher degree of autonomy (Huet et al., 2008, p. 158)

A review of the research literature on learning strategies at the University shows that the predominant foci are on (a) the relationship between the strategies adopted by pupils in secondary education and their adequacy (or not) to the needs of higher education  (Bjork, Dunlosky, & Kornell, 2013 ), (b) the strategies that students need to learn and use to succeed in higher education, (c)  the strategies that either universities or teachers promote in their classes; and (d) on methods to improve metacognitive knowledge and to encourage effective learning strategies in higher education (Tullis, Finley, & Benjamin, 2013; Yan, Bjork,& Bjork, 2016). The characteristic feature of these approaches is that they aim to, after defining the authors' conceptualisation of what learning strategies are and should do, 'measure' effectiveness, usually by linking it to student performance. This approach's characteristic is that it seems to view students as an 'empty box' who, in their years of schooling and social and cultural life, have not learned and integrated learning strategies that they can transfer and use at the University.

 [Anonymised] research project, instead of considering   students as 'lacking',  sees them as epistemic selves, prepared for rational knowledge (Charlot, 2001), as  'carriers' of knowledge and learning strategies that have been incorporated into their conceptual and practical baggage, not only in schooling experiences but also in everyday life situations and contexts (sports, socialisation, family,...). This paper focuses on making a 'reading' of what the  [anonymised] conversations with the students provide. It allows us to think about the learning strategies that young people share with us and how they relate to those 'demanded by the university'. We aim to generate ways of understanding the following questions: What strategies do students use to learn? What do these strategies allow us to consider the strategies proposed by researchers and teachers as necessary for the University? How do students' strategies relate to the different degrees they study? To what extent did virtual learning during covid lead to the emergence of other learning strategies?

This paper builds on the project [anonymised], aimed to explore the learning trajectories of higher education students to situate their conceptions, strategies, technologies, and contexts. The project adopts a participatory and inclusive research perspective (Bergold & Thomas, 2012; Nind, 2014; Wilmsen, 2008). In its different phases, it involves members of the academic community (students, academics, managerial bodies). In the first stage have participated 50 university students, 28 from Catalonia and 22 from the Basque Country. Thirty were women, 20 were men (55.6% and 44.4%, close to the distribution observed in Spanish universities in 2019-2020), and seven had specific needs (14%). We explored and built with them their learning lives (Erstad & Sefton-Green, 2012), placing special attention on their university learning experiences. In the first meeting, we explained to each participant the research aims, scope, and commitment it entailed for them and us. We signed the ethical protocols. Then, we shared contradictory views obtained from scientific publications and media discourses about contemporary youth. In the second meeting, they shared a reconstruction of their learning lives from childhood to the present through textual, multimodal and rhizomatic narratives; they highlighted moments, places, people, activities, objects, technologies, timeframes, turning points, etc., which they considered crucial to their learning paths. The third meeting focused on learning moments, methods, tools, and strategies they identify as relevant for their daily learning, including academic and non-academic activities undertaken inside or outside the institutional walls. In the final session, the fourth meeting, researchers shared a draft of their learning trajectories to contribute to the final version of the text. We audio-recorded and transcribed all meetings. This paper focuses on participants' learning strategies, the differences between degrees, and the impact of the sudden virtualisation of learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. For this paper, we concentrate on the 12 participants with whom the authors of this contribution have worked. From the transcripts, we made a table with the selected students' statements on the following subjects: what learning strategies they use to study and prepare for exams and what they also use outside university. We extracted 69 sentences and fragments of conversations and placed them in the first column. In the second, we related them to Dunlosky et al., (2013) 10 commonly used learning strategies. In the third, we discussed this list with students' strategies and included our reflections on what the students' statements allowed us to think about their learning strategies.

The participants use retrieval strategies and interleaved practice for studying. However, the variety of strategies that fall into these two areas found in the literature on the subject contributes to broadening the meaning of learning strategies. Thus, in retrieval, they use: questioning and questioning what they are studying, doodles as a retrieval strategy (floating), drawing pictures as mnemonic references, and inventing metaphors. And in interleaved practice, they connect formal (study) topics with non-formal ones. In addition, many use transfer strategies to their interests, real-life situations, and other knowledge. They link what they study to its social effects. They also use metacognition strategies linked to retrieving what they have forgotten and selecting what is useful. These are just a few examples of a comprehensive spectrum in which we would like to highlight, in contrast to the individual nature of the strategies found in the bibliography, the sense of sharing that many students project in their strategies: in collaborative work, in the shared study, in explanations to other students. Participants studying degrees with a recognised professional orientation (medicine, architecture, computer engineering) develop more strategies related to achievement, and the projects students have to develop. There is a wider variety of strategies in scientific and social science fields. The COVID pandemic led to the re-adaptation of strategies already in use to the virtual world, the lecturers' performance, and the proposed activities. Students tried to implement more affective strategies for minimising isolation and sharing with colleagues. They 'discovered' the corporeal and affective dimension of learning, aspects not always considered in the over-cognitive views of learning strategies. In conclusion, listening to the strategies that students develop and use makes this field of study more complex, as it calls into question the frameworks used and the very notion of 'measuring the effectiveness of learning strategies.

Bergold, J. & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory Research Methods: A Methodological Approach in Motion. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, (13)1. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1801/3334 Biwer, F., oude Egbrink, M. G.A., Aalten, P. & de Bruin, A. B.H. (2020). Fostering Effective Learning Strategies in Higher Education – A Mixed-Methods Study,Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition,9, (2), 186-203, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.03.004 Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013).Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illu-sions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823 Charlot, B. (Org.) (2001). A Noçao de Relaçao com o Saber: Bases de Apoio Teórico e Fundamentos Antropológicos. In B. Charlot (ed.), Os Joves e o Saber. Perspectivas mundiais (15-31). ArtMed. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham,D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4–58.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266 Erstad, O., & Sefton-Green, J. (Eds.). (2012). Identity, Community, and Learning Lives in the Digital Age. Cambridge University Press. Huet, I.,Tavares, J., Costa, N., Jenkins, A,, Ribeiro, C. & Baptista, A.V. ( 2008). Strategies to Promote Effective Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: A Portuguese Perspective. The International Journal of Learning, 17(1),157-163. Nind, M. (2014). What is Inclusive Research? Bloomsbury. Pino Juste, M. & Rodríguez López, B. (2010). Learning Strategies in Higher Education. The International Journal of Learning, 17(1), 259-274. 10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v17i01/46813 Tullis, J. G., Finley, J. R., & Benjamin, A. S. (2013). Metacog-nition of the testing effect: Guiding learners to predict the benefits of retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 41, 429–442.http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0274-5 Wilmsen, C. (2008). Extraction, empowerment, and relationships in the practice of participatory research. In M. Boog, J. Preece, & J. Zeelen (Eds.), Towards Quality Improvement of Action Research (pp. 135–146). Brill Sense. Yan, V. X., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2016). On the dif-ficulty of mending metacognitive illusions: A priori theories,fluency effects, and misattributions of the interleaving benefit.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 918–933.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000177