Language Learning and Metacognition: An Intervention to Improve Language Classrooms Rebecca E. Knoph, Erin M. Buchanan Introduction Metacognition is commonly defined as “thinking about thinking”, or more specifically as “thinking about the learning process, planning for learning, monitoring… while [learning] is taking place, and self-evaluation after… learning”.1   Multiple meta-analyses have found that metacognitive strategies can be taught, and that doing so can increase standardized test scores and final grades in all academic areas.2 While empirical evidence suggests that metacognitive instruction can provide benefit to learners in most areas, it appears that teachers are relatively unaware of metacognition as a concept and/or do not feel confident to instruct students on how to develop and use metacognitive strategies.3 At the same time, empirical evidence has shown that learning a second language has immense benefits for the learner. Not only does this learning result in a new linguistic skill, but also can improve skill in logic, problem-solving, and even the native language.4 The current study aimed to expose college students enrolled in a foreign language class to some of these metacognitive strategies. We hypothesized that doing so could increase the effectiveness of the language classroom and may result in higher retention rates. Participants Of the 547 unique students enrolled in a modern language course (level 101 or 201 only), 43 opted to participate in the study. Language courses taken included: French, German, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, Russian, Arabic, and Chinese. 14% of the sample identified themselves as male; 86% as female. Participants were matched to nonparticipants who were enrolled in the same course (i.e., a participant enrolled in French 201 was matched with a nonparticipant who also enrolled in French 201). These two pools were not significantly different in age nor GPA (p > .05), but did differ in gender (40% male for nonparticipants). Procedure Participants received text alerts every two weeks, which announced the opening of a new metacognitive strategy session. These announcements allowed participants to volunteer for each individual session, or to opt out of individual sessions. Each session remained open for one week, which allowed participants to move through the lesson at their own pace. Sessions began with new metacognitive information based around a specific theme. Next, participants answered a few manipulation check questions to ensure they understood the material. After, participants were asked their opinion of the new information.  Last, participants were asked their opinion of the previous session and its effectiveness, after having one week to use the strategies presented. Sessions The first session taught participants about general metacognition. The second session focused on metacognitive tools to improve vocabulary skills, such as mnemonic devices. The third session taught how to improve listening and audio skills, such as predicting what will come next. The fourth session included new metacognitive strategies focused on improving writing, such as writing rough drafts. Hypothesis 1 The first hypothesis aimed to answer if exposure to new metacognitive strategies could predict final course grade. After controlling for many demographic variables that may influence this relationship, the addition of participation in the study as a predictor for final course grade was significant, F(1, 77) = 16.48, p < .001, ΔR2 = 0.06, Overall R2 = 0.41.   When participants decided to participate and were exposed to metacognitive strategies, they were more likely to achieve a higher final course grade, b = 0.90, t(77) = 4.06, p < .001, pr2 = .20.  Hypothesis 2 The second hypothesis aimed to answer if exposure to new metacognitive strategies could predict if a student would enroll in the next course. After controlling for the same demographic variables as Hypothesis 1, the model produced nonsignificant results, χ 2(7) = 10.90, p = .14, Nagelkerke’s Pseudo R2 = 0.19.  Overall, 72.24% of participants were correctly predicted in their persistence, with better predictions for those persisting (88.64%) compared to those ending their TL university education (48.15%). Discussion Learning metacognitive strategies could be beneficial when taught with the “standard” language learning material. When students are exposed to information about how to learn effectively, their success in learning outcomes increases.5,6 The effect of exposure to metacognitive strategies was not seen in rates of persistence, however. This may be partly due to the complexity of deciding whether or not to enroll in the next course (i.e, choosing to enroll is not only dependent upon current grades, but also students’ schedule and ultimately their career goals). This pilot study revealed some significant limitations. First, all models were severely underpowered due to the small sample size (e.g. it was estimated that a sample of 153 would be best for the hierarchical binary log regression; however, the achieved sample size was approximately half at N = 86). A second limitation was selection biases. Originally, participants were to be compared to themselves in a multilevel model, such that the first intervention (basic metacognition) would serve as the “control” condition. When deciding to analyze the data using regression and comparing to a randomly-selected nonparticipant control group, demand characteristics became a potentially confounding variable. Some of the effects found in the current study may be due said characteristics. References 1 O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2 Dignath, C., Buettner, G., & Langfeldt, H. P. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively?: A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes. Educational Research Review, 3, 101-129.  3 Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3-14. 4 Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 236-250. 5 Pishghadam, R., & Khajavy, G. H. (2013). Intelligence and metacognition as predictors of foreign language achievement: A structural equation modelling approach.  Learning and Individual Differences, 24, 176-181. 6 Vrugt, A., & Oort, F. J. (2008). Metacognition, achievement goals, study strategies and academic achievement: Pathways to achievement.  Metacognition Learning, 30, 123-146.  For Tables 1 and 2, target language, course level, gender, and participation were represented as dummy variables with Spanish, introductory level, males, and nonparticipation serving as the reference groups. Table 2. Model information for prediction of persistence given participation. Table 1. Model information for prediction of course grade given participation. Figure 1. Scatterplot for prediction of final grade given participation via hierarchical linear regression. The 95% CI band is indicated in the shaded area. Figure 2. Dot plot for prediction of persistence given participation via binary logistic regression. Model Variable b SE t p pr2 1 Target Language   Spanish vs French 0.08 0.34 0.22 .83 < .001 Spanish vs Other 0.12 0.32 0.37 .71 Course Level 0.20 0.28 0.74 .46 .01 2 Age -0.05 0.03 -1.83 .07 .04 Gender -0.23 -0.69 .49 3 GPA 1.06 0.18 5.96 .43 4 Participation 0.90 4.06 .20 Target Language + Course Level + Age + Gender + GPA + Participation Final Course Grade Model Variable b SE z p 1 Target Language   Spanish vs French 0.45 0.64 0.70 .48 Spanish vs Other 0.40 0.59 0.67 .50 Course Level 0.93 0.52 1.78 .08 2 Age -0.12 0.07 -1.79 .07 Gender 0.43 0.62 .49 3 GPA 0.21 0.49 .62 4 Participation 0.58 0.77 .44 . Predicted Nonpersistence Predicted Persistence Actual Continued Enrollment No Yes Frequency Target Language + Course Level + Age + Gender + GPA + Participation Contact Us: Rebecca.Knoph@gmail.com or ErinBuchanan@MissouriState.edu. https://osf.io/k7d2t/