| The purpose of this study was to investigate what effects metacognitive language learning strategy training had on lower-achieving second language learners. It was hypothesized that the metacognitive language learning strategy training would improve learners' language knowledge, proficiency, and use of language learning strategies.;Seventy missionaries learning Spanish as a second language during an intensive two-month training period at the Missionary Training Center in Provo, Utah were the subjects of this study. These 70 represented the lower-achieving thirty percent of a randomly selected larger group. Half of the 70 subjects were randomly assigned to metacognitive intervention intact groups; the other half received were assigned to intact groups which received no metacognitive intervention training.;The metacognitive training for the intervention group consisted of twenty computer-assisted lessons and thirteen classroom lessons which trained subjects to metacognitively: (a) Determine what they were trying to accomplish during specific language learning activities, (b) identify what language learning strategies were being used, (c) assess how well the employed strategies were working, and (d) select additional or different strategies if what was being used was not working to accomplish the determined objective. Subjects also had access to software and hard-copy materials on demand to help monitor and evaluate the language learning process.;As part of the training, all subjects were tested for vocabulary, phrase, and grammar knowledge; listening comprehension; language performance in specific language tasks; and spontaneous use of language learning strategies.;Findings of the study indicate that those subjects who had the metacognitive language-learning strategy training intervention significantly increased their listening comprehension, vocabulary mastered, and phrases mastered when compared to the non-intervention subjects. No significant differences were found in grammar usage and performance in specific language tasks between groups.;The significant differences in strategy use were that the intervention group employed speaking, listening, and vocabulary language learning strategies more often than the non-intervention group. No other differences revealed significance.;When asked about the value of using metacognitive language-learning strategies such as monitoring, evaluating, and assessing in the language learning process, the groups trained in metacognitive strategy training showed a clear increase in the perceived value of the training and use of metacognitive language-learning strategies. |
