创意自我效能感

创意自我效能感 分类号H319.3 密 级 陕西师范大学 题目 自我效能和学习策略对八年级 学生英语成绩的影响研究 作 者 姓 名: 冯向莉 指导教师姓名: 王茂金 教授 学 科 专 业: 学科教学,英语) 提交日期: 二〇〇五年四月 he struggled to climb out from the dead, crawled to a nearby thatched. Cottage there lived two brothers, the eldest brother Gao Changhai and her younger brother Bing, local people called them "Shaoxing". At night, when there was a knock, Bing thEffects of the 8 Graders’ Self-Efficacy and Learning Strategies on Their Achievements in English Learning By Feng Xiangli THESIS Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Foreign Language in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Education in English Teaching Shaanxi Normal University April 2005 ng". At night, when there was a knock, Bingtage there lived two brothers, the eldest brother Gao Changhai and her younger brother Bing, local people called them "Shaoxihe struggled to climb out from the dead, crawled to a nearby thatched. Cot2 Acknowledgement I‘d like to take this chance to express my gratitude to all the people who have helped me considerably with my study and my writing of this thesis. First of all, I would like to thank my venerable academic advisor, Professor Wang Maojin, for his judicious guidance, insightful suggestion and unfailing attention to this thesis writing. Without his help, I could not have resolved to set about this thesis and it could not have taken the present form. He went through at great length every part of the thesis with thought-provoking comments. He gave me warm encouragement and genuine help, especially with the design of the questionnaires. My sincere gratitude also goes to Professor Dai Jiguo, Professor Zhang Sirui, Professor Zhang Jingyu, Professor Hou uhai, Professor Zhao Qinling and Professor Zhang Min for their excellent lectures on Y literature and English teaching, leading me to a much wider world. I‘m also grateful to our headmaster, Professor Sun Jian who gave us support in our graduate study. I cannot forget the interesting and lively lessons, lectures from many other professors from other institutes of Shaanxi Normal University. I will always remember the two-year precious campus life. It gives me a fresh start in my life. Meanwhile, I‘d like to thank all of my fellow classmates, with whom I have ever shared these two precious school years and from whom I have received considerable encouragement. In particular sincere thanks goes to Miss Qiao Shugui, with whom I have ever spent four years‘ college life, for her heartfelt help in my graduate study and thesis writing. I would like to express my appreciation to the students who participated in completing the questionnaires for their enthusiasm and my fellow teachers for their encouragement. My thanks will also go to anyone who offered me a lot of help in various ways---Miss Jiang and other teachers in the institute. Finally, I sincerely thank my family members, my parents and my husband, who have been providing me all the time with their most precious care and love in the world. ". At night, when there was a knock, Bingge there lived two brothers, the eldest brother Gao Changhai and her younger brother Bing, local people called them "Shaoxinghe struggled to climb out from the dead, crawled to a nearby thatched. Cotta1 自我效能和学习策略对八年级学生英语成绩的影响研究 冯向莉 摘要 此论文主要围绕八年级学生的自我效能与英语学习策略对英语成绩的影响，来研究这二个因素的相互关系、以及不同成绩的学生的差异，以帮助教师和教育工作者探求改进中学英语教学的思路与途径。 自我效能(self-efficacy) 作为一个核心概念，是班杜拉于1977年提出的影响学习和行为改变的重要认知机制。它是指在组织和执行一系列为达到预定效果的活动中影响个体能力的自身因素，被普遍认为对人最具决定性影响，此因素甚至可以解释具有相似知识和技能的人，其行为为何存在显著差异。他认为学习效能对学习成绩有重要的影响(Bandura, translation, 2003)，这种观点得到许多研究者的认同。语言学习策略指的是学习者在学习过程中慎重选取的环节，通过对那种语言信息的储存、保留、回忆和应用来提升对第二语言或外语的学习或使用行为(Cohen, 2000)。学习策略与情感策略已成为新课程标准的主要目标，这教师提升学生娴熟使用英语的整体能力。他们被认为对学习成绩有显著影响(Cohen, 2000)。 所以我们猜测在英语学习上的自我效能和学习策略都对英语成绩有显著的影响。 鉴于此，我们设计问卷来调查关于英语学习效能和学习策略的一些情况，来解答下列问题: (1)学生的学习效能、学习策略以及各维度的是何情况，是否存在性别差异, (2)学习成绩与这两个变量以及他们的各维度是什么样的相互关系, (3)这些变量对英语成绩的预测值是多少,哪些更突出, (4)不同成绩，效能和策略的学生的有何差异, 本问卷调查的119被试是西安市第59中学八年级学生。他们必须回答两份问卷:一份关于自我效能，包括学习能力自我效能和学习行为自我效能;另一份关于学习策略，包含四个维度:认知策略，元认知策略，情感策略和交际策略。用学生八年级第二学期的期末成绩来和这些变量进行对比(借助SPSS11.0软件进行数据统计得出自我效能水平普通但能解释,,.,,的成绩的变异，学习策略使用情况一般能解释,,.,,的成绩的变异，而且这两者间存在显著相关(在自我效能方面存在显著性别差异，较成功者与成功者，不成功者在自我效能和学习策略方面都存在显著差异，但元认知策略是唯一体现成功者与不成功者显著差异的次变量( 作为教师，我们清楚的知道八年级学生在心理和生理方面变化很快，他们非 ng". At night, when there was a knock, Bingtage there lived two brothers, the eldest brother Gao Changhai and her younger brother Bing, local people called them "Shaoxihe struggled to climb out from the dead, crawled to a nearby thatched. Cot4 常需要学习和生活上的关心和指导(我们从这些结果不仅更多的了解了学生的英语学习情况，而且也从理论上启迪我们怎样提高学生学习英语的动机，开发学生的潜能,促进自我意识发展以及提高社会生存技能(因此我们认为强化学生的自我效能和培养他们更为有效的使用并掌握英语学习策略是非常重要和必要的，这对激励学生养成更为热情和高效的终身学习语言的习惯更是必要( 关键词:自我效能，英语学习策略，英语成绩 ". At night, when there was a knock, Bingge there lived two brothers, the eldest brother Gao Changhai and her younger brother Bing, local people called them "Shaoxinghe struggled to climb out from the dead, crawled to a nearby thatched. Cotta1 thEffects of the 8 Graders’ Self-Efficacy and Learning Strategies on Their Achievements in English Learning Feng Xiangli thAbstract This thesis aimed at analyzing the effects of the 8 graders‘ self-efficacy and English learning strategies on their English achievements, the interaction of the two variables, and the difference between students with different achievements as well so as to enlighten teachers and educators to probe better conception and ways to English teaching. Self-efficacy as a central concept proposed by Bandura in 1977 is an important cognitive mechanism influencing learning and behavior change. It is personal factors about one‘s capabilities to organize and execute courses of actions required to attain designated types of performances, which is regarded as the most influential arbiter in human agency and helps explain why people‘s behavior may differ markedly even when they have similar knowledge and skills. He deemed that students‘ self-efficacy had significant effects on their achievements (Bandura, translation, 2003) that was verified by lots of researchers (Schunk, 1983). Language learning strategies refers to processes which are consciously selected by learners and which may result in action taken to enhance the learning or use of a second or foreign language, through the storage, retention, recall, and application of information about that language (Cohen, 2000). Learning strategies with affective strategies is one of the most principal aims in New English Syllables, which requires teachers to develop students‘ overall ability in using English and train them to be skillful and thoughtful. They were thought to effect students‘ English learning significantly (Cohen, 2000). So we predicted that self-efficacy and learning strategies should have significant effects on learning English. As a result we designed questionnaires to investigate students‘ self-efficacy and strategies so as to solve the following questions: (1) How were students‘ self-efficacy, learning strategies and their subdivisions in learning English and whether there was gender difference or not? (2) What relationships between students‘ English achievements and the two variables as well as their subdivisions? (3) What are the predictions of these variables to English achievements and which ng". At night, when there was a knock, Bingtage there lived two brothers, the eldest brother Gao Changhai and her younger brother Bing, local people called them "Shaoxihe struggled to climb out from the dead, crawled to a nearby thatched. Cot6 is more important, (4) What differences exist for the students with different achievements, efficacy and strategies? thThe 119 subjects came from the 8 grade in N0.59 junior middle school. They had to complete two questionnaires: one is about self-efficacy classified into two branches of self-efficacy of learning ability and self-efficacy of learning behavior, and the other is about English strategies containing four sub-variables: cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, affective strategies and communicative strategies. Their final examination achievements in the second term were used to compare with the two variables. The results computed by SPSS (11.5) showed students‘ self-efficacy that was normal could account for 20.3% of the variance, and strategies students used ordinarily could account for 18.4% of the variance, and the two variables had significant correlation. There was significant gender difference only in self-efficacy and there were greatly significant self-efficacy and strategies difference between more successful students, successful students and less successful students. Metal-cognitive strategies were unique sub-variables that showed significant difference between successful students and less successful students. As teachers, we know clearly that the psychology and physiology of the 8th graders grow very quickly and they deserve caring and directing in learning and living essentially. From these results we not only get to know more about students in learning English but obtain more theoretical enlightenment on how to improve students‘ motivation in learning English, develop their potentiality, enhance their self-consciousness and better their survival skills in society. Hence we think it important and compulsory to reinforce students‘ self-efficacy and train them to be more proficient in applying and mastering learning strategies and to inspire students to be more enthusiastic and efficient in lifelong learning language. Key words:Self-efficacy, English learning strategies, English achievements ". At night, when there was a knock, Bingge there lived two brothers, the eldest brother Gao Changhai and her younger brother Bing, local people called them "Shaoxinghe struggled to climb out from the dead, crawled to a nearby thatched. Cotta1 Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ……………………….……………………………………….1 1.1 Research Orientation…………………………………………………………...1 1.2 Rationale for the Study…………………………………………………………1 1.3 Research Questions……………………………………………………………..2 1.4 Organization of Thesis………………………………………………………….3 Chapter 2 Literature Review…………………………………….…………………….4 2.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………….4 2.1 Self-Efficacy……………………………………………….…………… ……..4 2.1.1 Self-efficacy and self-concept…………………………….……………….4 2.1.2 Behavior, sex, learning performance and self-efficacy…………….……..5 2.2 Learning Strategies…………………………………………………….……….6 2.2.1 the distinction between strategies and techniques………………….……..7 2.2.2 classification of language learning strategies………………………….…7 2.2.3 language learning strategies and learners……………… ……….……….8 trategies, self-efficacy beliefs and academic achievement………….……9 2.2.4 S 2.3 Requirements of New English Syllables (NES) …………………….………..10 2.4 Hypothesis of the Present Study…………………………………………….11 Chapter 3 Investigating Method……………………………………………………..12 3.1 Subjects……………………………………………………………………….12 3.2 Research Instruments……………………………………………….…………12 3.2.1 Questionnaires of self-efficacy………………………………………..13 3.2.2 Questionnaires of strategies………………………………….……… .13 3.3 English Achievements………………………………….…………………..…15 3.4 Analysis Tools…………………………………………………………..…….15 Chapter 4 Results …………………………………………………………………….16 Chapter 5 Discussions……………………………………………………..……29 5.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………..……29 5.2 Self-efficacy and Learning Strategies in English Learning and English Achievement…………………………………………..………. 29 he struggled to climb out from the dead, crawled to a nearby thatched. Cottage there lived two brothers, the eldest brother Gao Changhai and her younger brother Bing, local people called them "Shaoxing". At night, when there was a knock, Bing 5.3 Gender difference and STRS, SELF and SEAS Difference……………..….31 Chapter 6 Conclusions……………………………………………..………………..35 6.0 Introduction…………………………………………………….…………..35 6.1 Findings in the Study……………………………………….……………35 6.2 Limitations of the Study……………………………………….…………...37 6.3 Suggestions for Further Research……………………………….…………..38 6.4 Pedagogical Implication…………………………………….……………..38 Bibliography……………………………………………………………..……………40 Index………………………………………………………………….……………….43 在校就读期间研究成果……………………………………………………………….48 2 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Research Orientation thThis thesis focused mainly on probing the effects of the 8 graders‘ self-efficacy and English learning strategies on English achievements, the interaction of the two variables and the difference between students with different achievements, self-efficacy and strategies as well, so as to enlighten teachers and educators to probe better conception and ways to English teaching. 1.2 Rationale for the Study The term ―self-efficacy‖, which was presented as a cognitive concept by Bandura in 1977, refers to beliefs about one‘s organize and implement actions in task specific situations that may contain novel, unpredictable, and possibly stressful features (Bandura, translation, 2003; Schunk, 1983), Bandura assumed that these specific expectations about ability to perform particular actions influence whether a person will attempt an action and how persistent and, consequently, how successful at the action he or she will be, provided there are adequate skills and appropriate incentives. Efficacy judgments are considered to be the outcome of an inferential process and are assumed to be subject to information from performance attainments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal (Norwich, 1987). Information from these sources does not automatically influence efficacy, but is weighed and used to cognitively appraise personal and situational factors influencing ability to perform a task (Gaskill & Murphy, 2004). Self-efficacy is hypothesized to affect effort expenditure and persistence (Bandura, translation, 2003). Research in a wide range of academic contexts attests to the importance of enhancing efficacy beliefs to achieve substantive outcomes, such increased levels of academic performance in writing (Schunk & Swarts, 1993; Pajares & Valiante, 1997), mathematics (Schunk, 1983; Randhawa, Beamer & Lundberg, 1993) and general performance (Bandura, translation, 2003). Students with a strong sense of academic self-efficacy have been proven to willingly undertake challenging tasks, expend greater effort for accomplishing a given task, persist longer in the presence of difficulties, demonstrate lower levels of anxiety, use more effective learning strategies and self-regulate better than others (Bong, 2001). Language learning strategies (LLS) refers to processes which are consciously 1 selected by learners and which may result in action taken to enhance the learning or use of a second or foreign language, through the storage, retention, recall, and application of information about that language (Cohen, 2000: 7). Language learning and language use strategies can be further differentiated according to whether they are cognitive, metacognitive, affective and communicative. So they must concern personal factors. Schmeck encouraged researchers to view learning styles and learning strategies in the context of general personality factors such as reflectiveness / impulsiveness, self-confidence, self-efficacy, anxiety and motivation (Cohen, 2000: 15). Language learning strategies regarded as rather effective and more dynamic ways nowadays have been one of the teaching aims in the New English Syllables (Cheng & Zheng, 2002). It explicates that teachers should possess modern teaching conceptions and teaching methods so as to be more proficient. In addition, students in the modern society have been altering greatly with the rapid development of modern social culture and economy, they are more creative, energetic, outgoing and informative, so it is really urgent and critical for educators to focus on students‘ psychological and physiological growth, especially in elementary education (Zhang, 2002). A great quantity of researches on learning strategies have proved that the good language learner applies much more strategies and more frequently than the low-proficient learner. Anyway, the low-proficient learner makes use of some passive strategies, like rote memory instead (Cheng & Zheng, 2002). Hu and Xu‘s (2002) had ever examined the relationship between students‘ learning self-efficacy, learning strategies and Chinese, mathematics and English achievement. They obtained a distinct result that there were no gender differences in self-efficacy and learning strategies but there was significant correlation between them. How are students‘ learning self-efficacy and learning strategies? What relationship they have can help us to understand students more clearly, so as to decide how to improve students effectively and prompt teaching procedure greatly. 1.3 Research Questions thIn this thesis, 119 8 graders were asked to answer the questionnaires about self-efficacy and learning strategies in learning English, with which the final English achievements were collected to analyze together. Hence, my aim in this study was to test and verify the theoretical relations that derive from self-efficacy theory. We desired to know the relationship between 2 self-efficacy and learning strategies in English learning, the relationship between the two factors and English achievement. In the light of teaching experience, my particular aim in this study was to answer these questions: (a) How are students‘ self-efficacy, learning strategies and their subdivisions in learning English and whether there are gender differences or not? (b) What are the relationships between students‘ English achievements and the two variables as well as their subdivisions? (c) What are the predictions of these variables to English achievements and which is more important,(d) What are the differences between the more successful students (MS), successful students (SS) and less successful students (LS)? 1.4 Organization of Thesis The thesis is intended to start with the enlightenment of numbers of predecessors‘ researches and theories on learning self-efficacy and learning strategies in Chapter 2. Then, in Chapter 3, we will use the questionnaires of self-efficacy and thstrategies in English learning to undertake an investigation about the 8 graders and use SPSS (11.0) to compute and analyze the data, which have to be contrasted with students‘ final English achievements in the second term. In Chapter 4, we‘ll analyze the statistical results, so as to answer the four questions above. In Chapter 5, we will discuss the result and try to find useful information about students so that the questions can be explicated. Finally, in Chapter 6, conclusions must be drawn from the discussions. 3 Chapter 2 Literature Review 2.0 Introduction This part will bring together some research theories on learning self-efficacy, learning strategies and New English Syllables to see what the researchers have done beforehand and what viewpoints can benefit the thesis. 2.1 Self-Efficacy Bandura‘s social learning theory emphasizes the reciprocal causal relations between environmental, behavioral, and personal factors (Norwich, 1987). Self-efficacy is an important cognitive mechanism influencing learning and behavior. That is, what people do is often better predicted by their beliefs about their capabilities than by measures of what they are actually capable of accomplishing (Bandura, translation, 2003; Pajares & Johnson, 1994). It is also a context-specific assessment of competence to perform a specific task, a judgment of one‘s capabilities to execute specific behaviors in specific situations (Pajares and Miller, 1994). Bandura postulated that a person‘s self-efficacy expectation concerning the ability to successfully perform a given task is a reliable predictor of whether the person will attempt the task, how much effort he or she spend, and how much the person will persevere in pursuing the task in the facing of foreseen difficulties. Also, a person‘s perceived self-efficacy influences and is in turn affected by cognitive styles and preference, arousal, and task performance outcome (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001). But self-efficacy does not simply ―cause‖ subsequent behavior. Rather, it affects behavior by influencing the choices people make, the effort they expend, the perseverance they exert in the face of challenges and difficulties, and their thought patterns and emotional reactions (Pajares & Johnson, 1994). 2.1.1 self-efficacy and self-concept This theoretical perspective of self-efficacy differs from traditional self-concept. That is, self-concept judgments are more global and less context dependent, and are not specific assessments of capability (Pajares and Miller, 1994). It refers to self-perceptions formed through experience with the environment and, in particular, through environmental reinforcements and the reflected appraisals of others and is typically measured at a higher level of generality than self-efficacy (Pietsch, Walker & 4 Chapman, 2003). Pietsch, Walker & Chapman (2003) cited that Pajares & Schunk suggested that ―efficacy beliefs are formed by asking ?can‘ questions and should be more highly related to academic achievement for its relating to personal confidence of achieving certain outcomes or cognitive appraisal of competence, whereas self-concept beliefs are formed by asking questions of ?being‘ and ?feeling‘‖. Bong & Skaalvik (see, Pietsch, Walker & Chapman, 2003) argued that self-concept has a cognitive and an affective component, whereas self-efficacy relates to cognitive appraisals of competence. Pietsch, Walker & Chapman (2003) also reported that mathematics self-efficacy was more highly related to mathematics performance than math self-concept. Social cognitive theorists also distinguished self-efficacy from expectancy beliefs because even when people believe that a set of behaviors will lead to a desirable outcome, they might not act unless they also believe that they can successfully perform those behaviors in question (Bong, 2001). 2.1.2 behavior, sex, learning performance and self-efficacy elf-efficacy can affect choice of activities. People who hold a low sense of S efficacy for accomplishing a task may attempt to avoid it, whereas those who believe they are more capable should participate more eagerly (Pajares & miller, 1994; Gaskill & Murphy, 2004). Norwich (1987) found that prior self-efficacy had the only predictive relation with subsequent self-efficacy, under the condition of greater task familiarity. Essentially, highly efficacious students select more challenging tasks, put forth more effort, and persist longer when tackling difficult tasks than those who lack such confidence (see Bandura, translation, 2001, p556; Gaskill & Murphy, 2004; thBong, 2001). Li &Zhang (2000) reported that the 8 graders‘ self-efficacy had positively significant correlation with their instrumental help seeking for teachers but negatively significantly correlated with their avoidance of help seeking. Bandura (Bandura, translation, 2001) hypothesized that self-efficacy beliefs mediate the effect of other determinants of performance such as gender and prior experience on subsequent performance. That is, when these determinants are controlled, self-efficacy judgments are better predictors of performance, Pajares and Miller (1994) cited that Collins found when prior performance was controlled, children with high self-efficacy outperformed children with low self-efficacy in the completion of novel math problems, showed greater effort, and persisted longer on reworking incorrect problems. And in the high-achievement group, higher achievement was related only to higher self-efficacy (Bruning, Shell, & Colvin, 5 1995). Many researchers have found gender differences in students‘ mathematics self-efficacy (Pajares & Valiante, 1997; Pajares and Johnson, 1994; Pajares &Graham, 1999; Pajares & Miller, 1994), Pajares & Valiante (1997) reported that elementary students‘ writing self-efficacy and aptitude had strong direct effects on performance, and girls showed greater self-efficacy than boys did. Nevertheless, Pintrich & De Groot (1990) reported boys tended to rate themselves more efficacious than do girls through grades. Yang (1996) investigated the relationship between middle school students‘ self-efficacy and their achievements in Chinese, math and English examinations, and found that the achievement of more successful students was 10.25 higher than that of the students with learning disabilities, whose self-efficacy of learning ability was significantly higher than their own self-efficacy of learning behavior. His another finding was that boys with learning disabilities had stronger learning efficacy perceptions than girls with learning disabilities did, nevertheless, girls‘ learning behavior was reported more salient than boys did. Self-efficacy judgments are assumed to have motivational effects, they are considered to be relevant to children‘s academic achievement (Norwich, 1987). It should affect English learning, however, most of the researches were about mathematics, only a few researches are on English learning. Randhawa, Beamer & Lundberg (1993) quoted Schunk &Gunn‘s opinion to restrict the meaning of English self-efficacy to the generalized self-efficacy that refers to perceptions of competence in the subject. Anderman and Midgley (1997) found that task goals in both math and English were more positively related to efficacy in the fifth grade than in the sixth grade. Ability-approach goals were unrelated to efficacy in the fifth grade and were positively related to efficacy in the sixth grade. 2.2 Learning Strategies Learning strategies are systematic plans that help the learner encode information and perform a task, further to improve immediate performance and generalize beyond the learning context. The process of learning English is quite an arduous way to finish variable tasks, to achieve his or her goals, which have been associated positively with learning strategies. But ―the effectiveness of a strategy may depend largely on the characteristics of the given learner, the given language structure(s), the given context, or the interaction of these (Cohen, 2000:12).‖ Wen Qiufang considers strategies‘ aim is to prompt learning efficiency and the essence is about learners‘ action that is both 6 internal and external (Cohen, 2000:F14), and regards using strategies as an unconscious activity (Cheng & Zheng, 2002). Strategies are specific methods of approaching a problem or task, modes of operation for achieving a particular end, planned designs for controlling and manipulating certain information. They are contextualized ―battle plans‖ that might vary from moment to moment or day to day or year to year. Strategies vary intraindividually; each of us has a whole host of possible ways to solve a particular problem and we choose one—or several of those in consequence—for a given problem (Brown, 1987: 79). They do not operate by themselves but rather are directly tied to the learner‘s underlying learning styles and other personality-related variables in the learner (Cohen, 2000:15, cited in Brown, 1987). 2.2.1 distinction between strategies and techniques The term‘strategies’has been used to refer both to general approaches and to specific actions or techniques used to learn a second language (Cohen, 2000: 9), and it can have its substrategies like: metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies and social/affective strategies. But the term‘techniques’refers to particular skills which language learner used to deal with concrete or specific problems (Cheng, 2002). The former is like tactics used in playing football, during that time the players must decide rapidly and know clearly when to pass the football. As to how to pass the ball and whom he should pass it to, this belongs to the individual‘s skill and ability. So we can judge the former from a point of view of centralize guidance and regard the latter from the individual adjustment. 2.2.2 Classification of language learning strategies O‘Malley & Chamot classified strategies into three groups according to information-processing model: metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies and social /affective strategies (see McDonough, 1999; Cohen, 2000:F14). Based on the relationships between strategy and language material, Oxford‘s Strategy System described more explicitly: Direct strategies (Memory strategies; Cognitive strategies; Compensation strategies) and Indirect strategies (Metacognitive strategies; Affective strategies; Social strategies). According to the aim of using strategies, Cohen divided them into two aspects: language learning strategies and language strategies. But Wen made this classification more definite, which comprises managing strategies related to learning processes and language learning strategies related to language learning material (Cohen, 2000:F16). In this thesis O‘Malley & Chamot‘s classification was used to make a questionnaire. 7 2.2.3 language learning strategies and learners Language learning strategies theory postulates that, other things being equal, at least part of this differential success rate is attributable to the varying strategies, which different learners bring to the task (Griffiths & Parr, 2001). Cohen (2000: 8) proposes since strategies themselves have sometimes been referred to as ?good,‘ ?effective,‘ or ?successful‘ and the converse, it needs to be pointed out that with some exceptions, strategies themselves are not inherently good or bad, but have the potential to be used effectively whether by the same learner from one instance within one task to another instance—within that same task, from one task to another, or by different learners dealing with the same task. Research and theory in second language learning strongly suggest that good language learners use a variety of strategies to assist them in gaining command over new language skills. The literature is replete with studies suggesting that higher-proficiency or low-proficiency learners use more or fewer strategies than the other group—usually indicating that the better learners use more strategies but sometimes just the opposite (Cohen, 2000). Cohen (2000:18) cited a study of language learning strategies in Green & Oxford (1995), which investigating more than 300 students found greater use of learning strategies by more successful learners. Another study (Cohen 2000, cited in Chen, 1990), which carried out in a small-scale at Guangzhou Foreign Language Institute with six higher-proficiency and six lower-proficiency English majors, found the higher-proficiency learners used fewer communication strategies when communicating both concrete and abstract concepts to a native speaker in an interview setting, as well as using those strategies more effectively than did the lower-proficiency learners. He claimed that, presumably the first finding indicated more is better, and the second suggest that higher-proficiency learners may be able to perform well using fewer consciously selected strategies, at least on those communicative tasks. In contrast, the lower-proficiency learners who may keep trying different strategies without comparable success end up using more strategies altogether. Thus, the total number or variety of strategies employed and the frequency with which any given strategies is used are not necessarily indicators of how successful they will be on a language task. Whereas the successful completion of some tasks may require the use of a variety of strategies used repeatedly, the successful completion of others may depend on the use of just a few strategies, each used only once but successful. The gender difference was also demonstrated that females tended to use 8 strategies more often and varied than males, particular in communicative strategies (Gardner & Maclntyre, 1992). But Hu & Xu (2002) didn‘t support this result. 2.2.4 Strategies, self-efficacy beliefs and academic achievement Researchers also found there was significant correlation between learning strategy and higher achievement (Liu and Guo, 1993; Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons, 1990). Links between use of strategies, self-efficacy beliefs and academic achievement also have been examined in numerous studies about math, reading and writing (Printrich &De Groot, 1990; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990; Gaskill & Murphy, 2004). Significant correlations were found between self-efficacy and learning strategies (Schunk, 1981; Gaskill & Murphy, 2004; Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons, 1990; Li and Zhang, 2000), but not between self-efficacy and writing strategies (Page-Voth & Graham, 1999). thHu and Xu (2002) investigated the relationship among the 8 graders‘ learning attribution, learning strategies, learning self-efficacy and their achievement in Chinese, math and English examinations. They found that there were most significantly correlation among learning attribution, learning strategies and learning self-efficacy, and there was no significant gender difference in learning strategies and learning self-efficacy except learning attribution. They also found that students‘ self-efficacy of learning ability and cognitive strategies had immediate impression on learning achievement, and the two variables could predict 51.9% of the variance in learning achievement. Students with a strong sense of academic self-efficacy have been proven to use more effective strategies (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990; Schunk & Swartz, 1993). Gaskill and Murphy (2004) documented that the students trained a memory strategy set increasingly higher judgments of future performance. Those students who had access to the memory strategy reflected higher levels of self-efficacy through their prediction. The belief that one can apply a strategy to improve learning may instill a sense of efficacy for influencing achievement outcomes. Moreover research has found that self-efficacy is promoted when one understands and applies a strategy that can enhance achievement and leads to a greater sense of control over learning outcome (Griffin, M & Griffin, W, 1998). Gaskill and Murphy (2004) found that students who learn a memory strategies use it with positive influence on their task performance and increases in their efficacy to perform a future memory task. But to our surprise, Griffin, M & Griffin, W, (1998) found a puzzled result that 9 reciprocal peer tutoring (RPT) which is a cooperative learning strategy had no significant impact on students‘ academic self-efficacy in the first experiment, however students showed higher levels of self-efficacy when exposed to RPT. But students RPT was found to have significant effects for academic achievement in the second experiment. His findings failed to provide robust support for the others‘ findings. 2.3 Requirements of New English Syllables (NES) In the light of New English Syllables (NES), learning foreign languages will benefit the development of students‘ cognitive capability, favorable character, will, disposition and cooperative spirit. The aim of English teaching in junior middle school has ever been amended several times. It has been a long time since our constitution stipulated that the purpose of education is to improve the quality of the youth. After many years‘ perfectibility, the compulsory education syllabus of junior middle school highlights non-intelligence factors, such as interest, belief, learning habits and self-learning ability and so on. Opting and using language learning methods is one of the purposes of NES, which is beneficial to students to cultivate their learning capacity and achieve lifelong study. In NES, there are four divisions: cognitive strategy, monitoring strategy, communication strategy and resource strategy, which are similar to O‘Malley & Chamot‘s classification and related to the application goals as well as the psychological and cognitive procedure. Affective strategy is another purpose of NES. It demands the teachers not only to develop the students‘ language skills and broaden their language knowledge responsibly but also to foster compulsorily the students‘ great affective attitude towards language. Researchers of the foreign language education have attained some conclusions out of a large number of researches into the relationships between affective attitude and foreign language learning, ―It is helpful to solve affective problems to improve language learning efficiently. Passive affections, like anxiety, fear, embarrassment, anger, doubt, and dislike etc, affect regular development of students‘ potentialities. If this kind of emotion is quite influential, students will be inhibited. On the contrary, active affective, for instance, self-esteem, self-belief, empathy, motivation, pleasure and amazement, are beneficial to the learning emotion.‖ 2.4 Hypotheses of the Present Study 10 English learning is a pop topic either in middle school or in college, and it is full of fun or difficulty in learning it for Chinese students. The findings above seldom focused on investigating the relationship between self-efficacy in learning English and English learning strategies, and their effects on English achievement. According to the researchers‘ theories and conclusions, we hypothesize that there is also significant correlation among self-efficacy in English learning, English learning strategies and English achievements, and there is significant gender difference in English learning self-efficacy and strategies, and the prediction of self-efficacy to English achievement is higher than that of English learning strategies. The following investigation will set about testing and verifying the hypotheses. 11 Chapter 3 Method 3.1 Subjects The subjects included 75 girls(62%)and 46 boys(38%)in the 8th grade in No.59 junior middle school. The collected valid questionnaires were 119—73 girls (64%) and 46 boys (36%). 3.2 Research Instruments 3.2.1Questionnaire of learning self-efficacy According to Gibson‘s Teacher Efficacy Scale (1984), I designed 22 items to learn middle school students‘ self-efficacy in English learning. After each item there were four scales for the students to choose: 1--completely disagree, 2--disagree, 3--agree and 4--completely agree. The higher scores the students get, the stronger self-efficacy students feel. These items mainly described students‘ individual self-perceptions, self-regulation and self-assessment in learning English. The reliability coefficient of this questions α= 0.88. In order to know more about the effects of students‘ self-efficacy on English achievements, I divided the students into three groups: those whose self-efficacy are over the sum of the mean and the standard deviation are high-efficacy learners (SELF>3.21, n=15), below the difference of the mean and the standard deviation are low-efficacy learners (SELF<2.29, n=22), the rest are medium-efficacy learners (n=82). Based on the self-efficacy theory, the questions could be categorized into two aspects: self-efficacy of learning ability and self-efficacy of learning behavior. Self-efficacy of learning behavior refers to self-perceptions that appraise and evaluate their behavior so as to obtain their goals and bring about their outcome. Self-efficacy of learning ability means individuals‘ self-assessment to their capability of learning, gaining a higher score and avoiding failure (Hu & Xu, 2002). They should be discussed separately. The reliability of this questionnaire is α= 0.88. For the part of Self-efficacy of learning ability: It included eleven items, which described students‘ individual perceptions to English learning. The items were listed below: (1) I can achieve high achievements. (2) I can solve problems capably. (3) Whenever I can insist on studying English. (4) I can understand the new text before the class. (5) I can manage to learn English effectively in different situations. (6) I can answer the questions better than others. (7) I can never suspect my capability 12 in spite of unsatisfactory achievement. (8) I can master class task immediately. (9) I can develop my potentiality further in English learning. (10) I can feel better in expression. (11) I can do better than others in English. The reliability coefficient of this part is α=0.81. For the part of Self-efficacy of learning behavior: It also had eleven items, which were listed below: (12) I attribute my success to hard work. (13) Repeating from memory does me good. (14) Writing lessens my grammar errors. (15) I can search for more implement material after class. (16) I can ponder over English questions by integrating the former and latest contents. (17) I can do the exercises consciously all by myself. (18) I can induce language main points systematically. (19) I take notes very carefully. (20) I like to strengthen language by asking myself. (21) I can‘t realize the language points after each class. (22) My thoughts always wander in class. The reliability coefficient of this part is α=0.78. 3.2.2. Questionnaire of learning strategies This questionnaire is designed modeling the questions made by Cheng Xiaotang and Zheng Min (2002). It comprised 40 questions, which were divided into four fields: cognitive, metacognitive, affective and communicative/social strategies. The students must make a careful choice out of the five scales: 1--absolutely disagree, 2--usually disagree, 3--sometimes agree, 4--usually agree and 5-- absolutely agree. The higher score is, the more strategies the students use. Cheng‘s average discriminating standard is that the score of 4.5—5 indicates always using strategies; the score of 3.5—4.4 indicates using usually; 2.5—3.4 means normally using; 1.5—2.4 means unusually; and 1.0—1.4 means almost never. The total reliability coefficient α=0.93. In order to know more about the effects of students‘ strategies on English achievements, I divided the students into three groups: those whose strategies are over the sum of the mean and the standard deviation are high-strategies learners (STRS>4.00, n=21), below the difference of the mean and the standard deviation are low-strategies learners (STRS<2.74, n=21), the rest are medium-strategies learners (n=77). For the part of Cognitive strategies: Cognitive strategies encompass the language strategies of identification, grouping, retention, and storage of language material, as well as the language use strategies of retrieval, rehearsal, and comprehension or production of words, phrases, and other elements of the second language. There are sixteen items listed below. (1) I preview and review text in line with 13 my learning. (2) I can center on the class. (3) I can think over the problems vigorously. (4) I prefer to memorize main points. (5) I prefer to comprehend the contents with the help of pictures. (6) I can induce language points willingly. (7) I notice the law of pronunciation, grammar and spelling. (8) I take care on the use of language. (9) I learn English with the aid of Chinese. (10) I often watch and listen to English programs. (11) I often use dictionaries. (12) I often use repeat and some other memory means. (13) I learn words by association. (14) I sort out patterns and grammars by myself. (15) I guess the meaning of words by pictures. (16) I review the new phrases by making sentences. These strategies focus on the general learning strategies both in and out of class. It has more items than any other strategy which reliability coefficient is α=0.88. For the part of Metacognitive strategies: Metacognitive strategies are higher executive skills and more prominent than the others which deal with pre-assessment and pre-planning, on-line planning and evaluation, and post-evaluation of language learning activities and of language use events. Such strategies allow learners to control their own cognition by coordinating the plan,ning, organizing, and evaluating of the learning process. There is a rather extensive literature demonstrating that the higher-proficiency students are more likely and more effectively to use metacognitive strategies than the low-proficiency ones (Cohen, 2000).There are nine items, which compose: (17) I have explicit aim. (18) I work out my own learning plan. (19) I know my progress and insufficiency. (20) I often explore my own learning methods. (21) I often talk about learning experience with others. (22) I talk with classmates in English in class. (23) I create opportunities to use English after class. (24) I ask for help actively. Its reliability coefficient α=0.85. For the part of Affective strategies: Affective strategies serve to regulate emotions, motivation, and attitudes (e.g. strategies for reduction of anxiety and for self-encouragement). There are ten items, which comprise: (25) I constantly encourage myself. (26) I train my interest consciously. (27) I am energetic in learning. (28) I build up my confidence gradually. (29) I make effort to overcome shyness and anxiety. (30) I always encourage others. (31) I prefer to help the silent classmates. (32) I care about my affection. (33) I like expressing my feeling in talking. (34) I am ready to help others. Its reliability coefficient α=0.85. For the part of Communicative/Social strategies: Social strategies include the actions, which learners choose to use in order to interact with other learners and with native speakers (e.g. asking questions to clarify social roles and relationships or cooperating with others in order to complete tasks) (Cohen, 2000). There are six items 14 that center on language communication. (35) I value the opportunities of speaking English. (36) I hope to express myself clearly. (37) I use sign language and countenance frequently. (38) I will ask for help when facing difficulties. (39) I take notice of the discrepancy between Chinese and western cultures. (40) I will overcome language obstruction. Its reliability coefficient a=0.87. 3.3. English Achievement I collected the eighth graders‘ English achievements of the final examination in the second term. The test paper included two parts: listening and writing, and the total score is 120. Comparing the scores with students‘ self-efficacy and learning strategies, I studied the variables difference based on gender and achievements divisions. According to the calculating formula of mean plus and subtract standard deviation, I grouped students into three groups: more successful students (MSS), successful students (SS) and less successful students (LSS). More successful students are chosen to be those whose achievements are above the sum of the mean and the standard deviation (SACA>82.95, n=20). Less successful students‘ achievements are below the difference of the mean and the standard deviation (SACA<42.71, n=20), and the middle ones are successful students (n=79). 3.4 Analysis Tool These data were collected and analyzed by using SPSS (11.0) soft ware. We will use tables and graphs to show and synthesize the result. 15 Chapter 4 Results 4.1 Introduction This chapter will make up tables and graphs to compare and analyze the data. We will compute the means, standard deviations, correlations and predictors of the variables to explain the puzzle. Then we will analyze and compare the difference of students with different achievement, strategies and self-efficacy. Table 1 Comparing the mean and standard deviation of students’ self-efficacy, learning strategies as well as students’ final academic achievement. Variances Students (n=119) Boys (n=46) Girls (n=73) M SD M SD M SD t SELF 2.75 .46 2.62 .49 2.83 .42 2.44* STRS 3.37 .63 3.27 .70 .57 .573.44 1.49 SEAS 62.3 20.12 64.2 22.73 61.96 18.40 COGS 3.31 .59 3.21 .64 3.38 .54 1.49 METS 3.38 .79 3.22 .84 3.49 .74 1.80 AFFS 3.42 .73 3.29 .80 3.51 .68 1.62 COMS 3.37 .76 3.34 .75 3.39 .77 0.33 SELA 2.72 .48 2.62 .55 2.78 .43 1.60 SELB 2.79 .52 2.63 .54 2.89 .49 2.70* *Pearson Correlation is significant at the 0.05 levels (2-tailed). Note: SELF=students‘ self-efficacy; STRS= sum of the four aspects of strategies; COGS=cognitive strategies; METS=metacognitive strategies; AFFS=affective strategies; COMS=communicative strategies; SEAS =students‘ English achievements; SELA=self-efficacy of learning ability; SELB=self-efficacy of learning behavior 16 Table 1 shows that the mean of students‘ self-efficacy is neutral (M=2.75,SD=.46). Boys‘ efficacy (M=2.62, SD=.49) is nearly as equal as girls‘ (M=2.83, SD=.42) but there exists definite gender difference (t=2.44, p<0.05). Basing on Cheng‘s (2002) division on strategies use, we find that students usually use strategies (M=3.37, SD=.63), but it‘s full of disequilibria. Boys are trend to use strategies normally (M=3.27, SD=.70), and girls prefer to use often (M=3.44, SD=.57), But there is no gender difference in this respect. We can also find the means of the four strategies appear to approach to one another. Girls‘ learning strategies have the same order with the sum: affective strategies stands first (M=3.51), followed by metacognitive and communicative strategies, cognitive is last (M=3.37). But boys mark communicative strategies most fundamental (M=3.34), and rank affective and metacognitive strategies next, put cognitive (M=3.21) last. This is a little unanimous with Griffiths and Parr‘s (2001) investigation, in which students ranked social/communicative strategies first. We can even find that affective strategies are a little outstanding, which may imply that students are more active and much keener on learning English. Especially, the mean of girls‘ affective strategies (M=3.51) exceeds that of boys (M=3.29). This is in accordance with students‘ characteristics. Girls possess a little stronger affection than boys and the standard deviation of girls (SD=0.68) is lower than the one of boys (SD=0.80), which indicates girls are quite inclined to learn English totally. Nevertheless there is no difference between boys and girls. Though the mean of SELA (M=2.72, SD=.48) is close to that of SELB (M=2.79, SD=.52), there exists gender difference in SELB (F=7.30,p<0.05) instead of SELA, which implies girls think their learning behavior is better and more effective than boys in learning English, but their learning ability can match boys‘. See Table 2, we can find that STRS has a quite significant correlation with SELF (r=.73, P<.001), which attests to the researchers‘ result above. SEAS has most significant correlations with STRS (r=.43, p<.001) and SELF (r=.45, p<.001) and there is no definite distinction between the two correlations, and it appears to have significant but different correlations with the four strategies, however. It has a little higher correlation with METS (r=.42, p<.001), and it is still correlated equally with AFFS and COMS (r=.36, p<.001), and has comparable lower but quite significant correlation with COGS (r=.34, p<.001). It is also correlated a bit higher and significantly with SELA (r=.49, p<.001) than with SELB (r=.34, p<.001). COGS, 17 METS, AFFS, and COMS have high and quite significant correlations with STRS proving their high inner correspondences, and they also have high and quite significant correlations with SELF, which testifies to the conclusion above that students who possess high self-efficacy use more strategies. Both SELA and SELB have significant correlations with COGS, METS, 18 Table 2 Correlations of the four aspects of strategies, strategies, self-efficacy and students’ academic achievement Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 COGS 1 2 METS .72(*) 1 3 AFFS .63(*) .75(*) 1 4 COMS .64(*) .65(*) .71(*) 1 5 SELA .56(*) .53(*) .58(*) .49(*) 1 6 SELB .64(*) .64(*) .59(*) .54(*) .65(*) 1 7 STRS .83(*) .90(*) .90(*) .86(*) .62(*) .69(*) 1 8 SELF .66(*) .65(*) .64(*) .57(*) .90(*) .92(*) .73(*) 1 9 SEAS .34(*) .42(*) .36(*) .36(*) .49(*) .34(*) .43(*) .45 (*) 1 BCGS 1 2 BMTS .83(*) 1 3 BAFS .76(*) .84(*) 1 4 BCMS .80(*) .74(*) .82(*) 1 5 BSEA .63(*) .62(*) .63(*) .58(*) 1 6 BSEB .70(*) .70(*) .62(*) .65(*) .63(*) 1 7 BSTS .91(*) .93(*) .93(*) .91(*) .68(*) .72(*) 1 8 BSEF .73(*) .73(*) .69(*) .68(*) .91(**) .90(*) .77(*) 1 9 BEAS .43(**) .47(**) .33(***) .31(***) .51(*) .40(**) .42(**) .50(*) 1 GCGS 1 2 GMTS .62(*) 1 3 GAFS .51(*) .67(*) 1 4 GCMS .53(*) .60(*) .64(*) 1 5 GSEA .48(*) .44(*) .52(*) .44(*) 1 6 GSEB .59(*) .59(*) .54(*) .49(*) .66(*) 1 7 GSTS .76(*) .87(*) .86(*) .84(*) .57(*) .66(*) 1 8 GSEF .58(*) .55(*) .58(*) .51(*) .90(*) .92(*) .67(*) 1 9 GEAS .28(***) .40(*) .41(*) .41(*) .49(*) .34(**) .46(*) .45(*) * Pearson Correlation is significant at the 0.001 levels (2-tailed). **Pearson Correlation is significant at the 0.01 levels (2-tailed). *** Pearson Correlation is significant at the 0.05 levels (2-tailed). Note: BCGS=boys‘ cognitive strategy; BMTS=boys‘ metacognitive strategy; BAFS=boys‘ affective strategy; BCMS=boys‘ communicative strategy; BSTS=sum of four aspects of boys‘ strategy; BSEF =boys‘ self-efficacy; BEAS=boys‘ English achievement; GCGS=girls‘ cognitive 19 strategy; GMTS= girls‘ metacognitive strategy; GAFS= girls‘ affective strategy; GCMS= girls‘ communicative strategy; GSTS= sum of four aspects of girls‘ strategy; GSEF= girls‘ self-efficacy; GEAS= girls‘ English achievement; BSEA=self-efficacy of boys‘ learning ability; BSEB=self-efficacy of boys‘ learning behavior; GSEA=self-efficacy of girls‘ learning ability; GSEB=self-efficacy of girls‘ learning behavior. AFFS, COMS and STRS (p<.001), and they have exceedingly high and significant correlations with SELF. BSTS correlate with BSEF (r.77, p<.001) more significantly than the = correlation between GSTS and GSEF (r=.67, p<.001). The correlation of BSTS and BEAS (r=.42, p<.01) is near to that of GSTS and GEAS (r=.46, p<.001), the correlation of BSEF and BEAS (r=.50, p<.001) is near to that of GSEF and GEAS (r=.45, p<.001). The four aspects of boys‘ strategies have higher correlations with one another than those of girls‘. We can also observe that BCGS and BMTS correlate more significantly and closely with BEAS (BCGS, r=.43; BMTS, r=.47; p<.01), BAFS and BCMS have unanimous and significant correlations with BEAS (r=.33; r=.31; p<.05), GACA is significantly correlated with GMTS(r=40, p<.001), GAFS(r=.41, p<.001) and GCMS equally (r=.41, p<.001) besides with GCGS (r=.28, p<.05). Both BSEA and BSEB have higher and significant correlations with STRS than those of girls. BSEA is correlated with BEAS much more significantly (r=.51, p<.001) than BSEB is (r=.40, p<.01), which is near to the correlations between GEAS and GSEA (r=.49, p<.001) and between GEAS and GSEB (r=.34, p<..01). The correlation of BSEA and BSEB (r=.69, p<.01) is nearly equal to that of GSEA and GSEB(r=.65, p<.01). In general, STRS seems to have higher correlation with SEAS than SELF does, METS is most significant variable among these substrategies, which means students regard their achievement has much to do with their self-controlling and self-planning. SELF has more significant correlation with STRS than with SEAS. The correlation coefficients of variables with BEAS are a bit higher than those with SEAS. SELA stands more outstanding than SELB, which shows students have higher self-valuation and self-expectation as well. Table 3 Regression Analysis of Predictions of Strategies and Self-Efficacy and Their Subdivisions to English Achievements Variables Students(n=119) Boys(n=46) Girls(n=73) 22 2 Beta R Beta R Beta R 20 STRS .216 .184** .080 .174* .292*** .215** SELF .294* .203** .440*** .251** .255 .204 ** COGS -.005 .115** .076 .180* -.096 .080*** METS .266 .174** .470 .217* .203 .163** AFFS .002 .129** -.318 .111*** .051 .166** COMS .172 .131** -.068 .098*** .171 .165** SELA .149 .059* .419*** .259** .410* .242** SELB .007 .056*** -.012 .156* -.096 .116* * Pearson Correlation is significant at the 0.01 levels (2-tailed). **Pearson Correlation is significant at the 0.001 levels (2-tailed). *** Pearson Correlation is significant at the 0.05 levels (2-tailed). From Table 3, apparently we can find the standardized predictor coefficient of SELF to SEAS (β=.294, p<0.01) is more significant but that of STRS to SEAS (β=.216) is not, as STRS can account for 18.4% of the variance in English achievements and SELF can account for 20.3% of the variance, they totally account for 38.7% of the variance in English achievements. The prediction of boys‘ SELF (β=.440, p<0.05) has more significant effect on English achievements than that of their STRS (β=.080) has, which indicates boys‘ SELF accounts for as much as 25.1% of the variance in boys‘ English achievements and STRS can account for 17.4% of the variance in their achievements. The two variables together can account for 42.5% of the variance. But for girls the predictions of the two variables have a little disparity (STRS: β=.292, p<0.05; SELF: β=.255), which indicates STRS have more significant effect on their SEAS rather than SELF, and they can explain 41.9% of the variance in girls‘ English achievements. Among the subdivisions, METS are more salient than any other factor (β=.266), and can account for 17.4% of the SS‘ variance in their achievements. COMS are another directly effective substrategies (β=.172) and can explain 13.1% of the variance in English achievements. SELA has direct effect (β=.149) but only explain 5.9% of the variance. Equally boys‘ METS is more outstanding (β=.470) than the other three substrategies and can account for 21.7% of the variance in their achievements but less than SELA (β=.419, p<0.05) that has significant effects on their achievements can account for 25.9%. That is to say, boys‘ METS and SELA are principal factors predicting the students‘ achievements variance. Comparatively COMS and AFFS are lower than others. For girls, SELA has greater influence (β=.410, p<0.01)than the others and can account for 24.2% of the variance in their 21 achievements. METS and COMS have approaching effects and explain approximately 16% in English achievements, but COGS and SELB have no direct effects. Generally speaking, SELF show more influential on boys than on girls, but STRS is more significant to girls than to boys, SELA is quite significant to both of them as means it is critical to students in learning English. Table 4 Means and standard deviations of variables and achievements of more successful students (MSS), successful students (SS) and less successful students (LSS), as well as the means’ difference Variables MSS (n=20) SS (n=78) LSS (n=21) M SD t M SD t M SD t123 STRS 3.88 .53 3.82* 3.33 .58 2.16*** 3.03 .62 4.82* SELF 3.12 .40 3.51** 2.73 .45 3.32** 2.46 .30 6.04* SEAS 94.9 7.32 12.18* 61.9 11.5 10.16* 35.7 4.95 30.18* COGS 3.71 .50 3.19** 3.27 .56 1.34 3.08 .57 3.74* METS 3.92 .60 2.95** 3.38 .77 2.51*** 2.91 .71 4.91* AFFS 3.95 .60 3.41** 3.37 .68 1.52 3.11 .80 3.76* COMS 3.96 .72 3.71* 3.32 .68 1.82 3.01 .80 4.01* SELA 2.96 .45 2.14*** 2.71 .48 1.70 2.59 .44 3.24** SELB 2.96 .35 1.74 2.80 .53 1.53 2.51 .57 2.53*** *Pearson Correlation is significant at the 0.001 levels (2-tailed). **Pearson Correlation is significant at the 0.01 levels (2-tailed). *** Pearson Correlation is significant at the 0.05 levels (2-tailed). Note: This division was based on their achievements. t=T-test for equality of means 1 between MSS and SS. t= T-test for equality of means between SS and LSS. t= T-test 23 for equality of means between MSS and LSS. From Table 4, we can find the means of all the variables decreased progressively from MSS to LSS. The mean of SELF of MSS (M=3.12, SD=.40) is a bit higher than that of SS (M=2.73, SD=.45) and much higher than that of LSS (M=2.48, SD=.30). MSS use strategies more frequently (M=3.88, SD=.53) than do SS (M=3.33, SD=.58) and LSS (M=3.04, SD=.62). This testifies Schunk‘s (1983) findings that more successful students occurred to have higher self-efficacy and use more strategies than less successful students do. So strategies and self-efficacy are of great help to make MSS more salient than others. It is surprising but plausible to find that STRS, SELF and SEAS are significantly different among the three groups by the T-test. Also clearly enough significant difference goes to the four subscales of STRS between MSS and SS, MSS and LSS. 22 The significant difference of SELA rather than SELB between MSS and SS reveals SS may be weaker than MSS in learning ability though they really work as hard as MSS in English learning. It‘s obvious enough to see the significant difference between MSS and LSS in every variable, which implies they are poor not only in techniques but also in cognition, because the difference is rather high (t=6.04). Nevertheless, it is hardly to believe only METS among the subdivisions are significantly different between SS and LSS. We know there is significant difference between SS and LSS in SELF. But there is no any difference in SELA or SELB, we may judge that LSS enjoy learning English essentially, are able to use some strategies, but they can‘t monitor and regulate themselves successfully in learning English. Maybe some other factors are inclined to influence their English learning. Meanwhile, only METS of SS has significant correlation with their SEAS, none of the variables significantly correlate with their relevant SEAS. Table 5 Mean And standard deviation of boys and girls with different self-efficacy and strategies Variables Boys Girls N Mean SD N Mean SD t HSELF 8 3.43 .16 7 3.49 .21 .57 MSELF 26 2.70 .28 56 2.86 .03 2.53* LSELF 13 2.06 .16 9 2.07 .13 .15 HSTRS 8 4.42 .24 13 4.21 .19 -2.26* MSTRS 27 3.34 .37 50 3.39 .33 .67 LSTRS 12 2.44 .26 9 2.49 .27 .39 * Pearson Correlation is significant at the 0.05 levels (2-tailed). Note: HSELF=students with higher self-efficacy, MSELF=students with medium self-efficacy, LSELF=students with lower self-efficacy, HSTRS=students with higher strategies, MSTRS=students with medium strategies, LSTRS= students with lower strategies From this table, we can find there are gender differences only in MSELF (boys, M=2.70, SD=.28; girls, M=2.86,SD=.03) which indicates girls commonly regard themselves efficacious in learning English, and in HSTRS (boys, M=4.42, SD=.24; girls, M=4.21, SD=.19) which indicates that boys use more strategies than girls do. The number of students with MSELF and MSTRS are large than that of other variables. Here we want to use the graphs to compare the different students with different self-efficacy and strategies in English learning 23 Graph 1 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 STRATEGY Mean2.0 SELF Mi101010101083868788909293959699 ss2.3.5.6.7..0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 in0000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MSSEAS g 24 Graph 2 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 STRATEGY Mean1.5 SELF Mi454850525658616366697274767880 ss.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 in00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 SSEAS g Graph 3 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 STRATEGY Mean1.5 SELF Missing 30.00 33.00 36.00 39.00 41.00 25.00 32.00 34.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 LSSEAS Graph 4 25 120 100 80 60 40 20 STRATEGY 5.0 Mean0 SEAS 4.5 Missing 3.318 3.455 3.636 3.727 4.0 3.227 3.364 3.500 3.682 3.773 3.5 HSELF 3.0 Graph 5 2.5 STRATEGY Me 2.0 SELF an Mi101010101083868788909293959699100 ss2.3.5.6.7..0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 HISACA in0000000000 0000000000 80 60 40 20 STRATEGY 5.0 Mean0 SEAS 4.5 Missing 2.455 2.636 2.818 3.000 3.182 4.0 2.364 2.545 2.727 2.909 3.091 3.5 MSELF 3.0 Graph 6 2.5 STRATEGY Me 2.0 SELF an Mi101010101083868788909293959699 ss2.3.5.6.7..0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 HISACA in0000000000 0000000000 26 80 60 40 20 STRATEGY Mean0 SEAS Missing 1.864 1.955 2.045 2.136 2.227 1.682 1.909 2.000 2.091 2.182 2.273 LSELF Graph 7 120 100 80 60 40 20 SELF Mean0 SEAS Mi4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4. ss01 05 07 07 11 12 15 19 23 31 32 40 41 47 48 53 56 91 inHSTRA g Graph 8 27 120 100 80 60 40 20 SELF Mean0 SEAS Missing 2.89 3.03 3.20 3.43 3.54 3.71 3.82 2.85 2.96 3.10 3.24 3.48 3.57 3.77 3.92 MSTRA Graph 9 100 80 60 40 20 SELF Mean0 SEAS Missing 1.97 2.32 2.44 2.52 2.63 2.66 2.68 2.71 1.96 2.19 2.33 2.51 2.55 2.64 2.67 2.70 2.72 LSTRA The graphs show us the correlations of students with different levels of achievements，self-efficacy and strategies. Comparing the first three graphs, we can find that the lines of students‘ self-efficacy and strategies go upwards, downwards or forwards almost unanimously. In Graph1 that the district of students‘ self-efficacy 28 covers is from 2.5 to 3.5, but large number students stays from 3.0 to 3.5, and that of strategies is fundamentally from 3.5 to 4.5. It indicates that the two variables of the more successful students develop a bit similarly. In Graph2 the comparable extent of self-efficacy covers as large as 2.1 to 4.5, but most of the area is between 2.5 and 3.5. The zone of strategies is from 2.5 to 4.0 in which quite a few successful students appeared between 2.5 and 4.0 chiefly. Both of the lines reach their tops and feet nearly simultaneously which displays good and medium students‘ self-efficacy and strategies have higher correlation. But the two lines in Graph3 descend greatly to the end and the change of strategies is below 3.5 and that of self-efficacy is around 2.5. This tendency is rather different from those of the medium and good ones. The three graphs prove the conclusion that more successful and successful students have higher self-efficacy and use more strategies and the two variables correlate greatly with each other. In Graphs 4, 5, and 6, no matter what level of self-efficacy students are, the illustrations of the strategies change gently and almost keep the same level in the tendency. The English achievements of the students in low self-efficacy in Graph 6 are between 40 and 75 but most of them are below 60. Though there are 82 students with MSELF but the line of the achievement didn‘t change much. Of course exceptions are avoidable. In medium self-efficacy in Graph 5 the line of English achievements change around 60 and in high self-efficacy in Graph 4 the line of English achievements change around 80. The three graphs show us that the students who achieve higher achievements present high self-efficacy. In Graphs7, 8 and 9, no matter what level of strategies the students belong to, we find the three lines of the students‘ English achievements are principally around 60. This shows that the students‘ achievements barely change with the strategies. 29 Chapter 5 Discussions 5.1 Introduction This part mainly induced the relationship between self-efficacy and strategies in English learning, the effect between the two variables and English achievement, which was based on the statistical data in order to draw a few conclusions from the investigation. 5.2 Self-efficacy, learning strategies and English achievement in English learning First, the present study documented that the relationship between self-efficacy and learning strategies in English Learning was significantly correlated, as supported our hypothesis and was in line with the others conclusions (Gaskill & Murphy, 2004; Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons, 1990; Li and Zhang, 2000), which is also congruent with Hu and Xu‘s (2002) result that there was significant correlation between these two variables. Meanwhile there is significant correlation between the two variables and English achievement (Printrich &De Groot, 1990; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990; Gaskill & Murphy, 2004). Though the results in the first table showed the mean of SELF and STRS were not too high, in some degree, they really implied that students assessed themselves efficacious in learning English and used learning strategies practically, which need to be trained and improved essentially since they were predictive to the achievement. In addition, the mean of METS, which were found to be higher than that of any other substrategy and uniquely correlated with the SEAS of SS, supported O‘Malley & Chamot‘s theory that metacognitive strategies were more principal than the others (Cohen, 2000; Cheng & Zheng, 2002). This point also was attested by the higher correlation between SEAS and METS rather than the correlation between SEAS and the other substrategies, and even by the higher prediction of METS to SEAS. In the light of O‘Malley & Chamot‘s theory about learning strategies (Cohen, 2000), that METS still comprise several substrategies, such as advance organizers and preparation, directed and selected attention, self-management, self-monitoring and self-evaluation. Gaskill & Murphy (2004) reported students who were taught the metacognitive strategy were more efficacious than those who were not taught the 30 strategies. If students enjoy learning English, they will concentrate more on self-regulating and self-monitoring and also consider themselves to be capable of learning this subject. Therefore they will exhibit higher affective, which further explicates why education must center on developing students‘ affection in the NES nowadays. The hypothesis that the prediction of SELF to SEAS is higher than that of STRS to SEAS did not receive support. As efficacious students will make more effort and persist longer (Schunk, 1981) so as to pursue higher achievement, their performance, unavoidably is associated with the use of frequency and quality and quantity of strategies that allow them to fully process information, as a result the STRS will correspondingly speed up their English learning. However, this can be possible only on a broad base of experience and knowledge already exists (Gardner & Maclntyre, 1992). Moreover SELA also correlated with SEAS a little higher than SELB did and the prediction of SELA to SEAS was higher too. From this position we induced that students were positive and vigorous in learning English, they deemed themselves capable, talented and self-controlled, but in reality, they didn‘t behave as they thought. That is why their SELB didn‘t have prominent effects on SEAS (β=.007). This characteristic can be referred to COGS, which had no direct effects on SEAS (β=-.005) and just explained 11.5% of the variance in English achievement less than other substrategies. According to O‘Malley & Chamot‘s classification (Cohen, 2000) about COGS, which consist of repetition, directed physical response, note-taking, key words, transfer, contextualization and so on, we can find these strategies actually collected with learning behavior and neither COGS nor SELB was high and outstanding. In addition, there were 46 students choosing ?agree‘ and 42 choosing ?completely agree‘ for Item 4, which is about learning persistence and 34 students choosing ?agree‘ and 62 choosing ?completely agree‘ for Item 12, which is about learning effort. This result supported researchers‘ conclusions (Schunk, 1981; Gaskill & Murphy, 2004) that higher level of self-efficacy could increase effort and persistence. If students make higher predictions because they feel efficacious, the result should be that students would reach for higher goals and thus higher levels of achievement. thOn the grounds of teaching experience, we think the 8 graders are changeable and hard to control. English has been taught in primary school, and some students have ever learned it even earlier, so when they come to middle school, they still have strong feeling about it,. Buy when they face various information and subjects in 31 middle school, their self begin to grow up and they can judge their learning, friends, teachers and things around them by their own sense and the others‘ feedback. If they find they can get more happiness and success easily from English as usual, they will be voluntary to perform it by following teachers‘, friends‘ or other suggestions and requirements because they consider themselves capable and efficacious of learning that. On the contrary, if they can‘t gain what they want like before without difficulty, or they even don‘t like to seek help from others out of their weak self-respect, they may think they are unable to learn it well and finally may give it up. That‘s why MSS and LSS appearing in the second year in middle school. 5.3 Gender difference and STRS, SELF and SEAS difference The result supported that there was gender difference just in English learning self-efficacy and self-efficacy of learning behavior as well. Girls had higher learning self-efficacy than boys, especially in self-efficacy of learning behavior, which was consistent with researchers‘ (Pajares & Valiante, 1997; Yang, 1996). Meanwhile, girls‘ MSELF was higher than boys‘ as indicated that girls made more effort and gave higher assessment about their own ability in learning English. We consider that, in general, lots of girls are more obedient, steady, diligent and careful when they are in elementary school; they may make every effort to learn so as to satisfy their parents, their teachers and their relatives because almost they are too shy and susceptible to be scolded. Whereas, SELA was considered to have significant effect on both boys and girls, which showed both of them think more of ability than any other variables in learning. However, the hypothesis of gender difference in the use of strategies was not supported. Though girls seemed to use STRS more frequently and the prediction of STRS to SEAS was significant. This did not make any sense in the difference. There was salient gender difference in students‘ SELB. This isn‘t consistent with Hu and Xu‘s (2002) result in which there were no significant gender differences in the two variables. Since boys have been forcing to be more powerful and more accomplished than girls by the society for a long time, they must be efficient, confident, energetic and strong. But girls inclined to be industrious and work harder, they tried seeking for efficient learning strategies and use more often than boys did (Gardner & Maclntyre, 1992), their SELB, naturally was noticed. Gender difference in HSTRS, nevertheless, indicated boys tended to be more active and self-confident than girls in the proficient use of strategies. Besides 32 intelligence factors, we posited that boys had much stronger will and perseverance in learning, once they resolved to attempt something, they would try to make it. As a result, if boys can be instructed to use strategies correctly, positively, frequently and validly, they will have higher and stronger self-efficacy of learning ability, which react to encourage themselves to use more efficient strategies, thus they can improve their SELF. The graphs definitely showed us the changeable tendency of students with different achievement, self-efficacy and strategies. The first three graphs confirmed that STRS and SELF had extremely significant correlation. As testified the students who had higher SELF would obtain higher achievement. That nearly supported Gaskill & Murphy‘s (2004) findings. But SEAS didn‘t have this obvious change with STRS. This may imply that students didn‘t consider they could use strategies effectively rather they prefer to depend much on teachers‘ instruction passively and lack learning self-assessment and vigorous self-regulation. Students pay less attention to strategies using, to self-directions, which reflect the disadvantage of traditional education. Students can‘t fully tap their latent power voluntarily and they are bounded to examination and grade. The reason may be referred to the life surrounding. thWe know that the 8 students‘ self-awareness are growing progressively, their motivation isn‘t so strong and their aim isn‘t clean enough to guide themselves to learn. From the above graphs, we know students‘ achievements tend to develop with self-efficacy rather than strategies. In other words, everyone uses strategies, but some students can keep on drilling successively so that they can understand the ways deeply and efficiently. Then this kind of understanding will be transformed and internalized to their learning ability, which attributes to and further contributes to learning perseverance. That‘s why different students have got considerably distinguishing results when they use similar strategies. This can be proved by the last three graphs. Students with low self-efficacy cannot carry on using strategies decisively all the time, but students with higher self-efficacy had stronger self-education and self-management, their strategies keep the unanimous tendency. The definite contrast between LSS and MSS implied that LSS had lower self-assessment and self-monitoring. In other way, LSS were weaker not only in mind but in skills, they make less effort and cannot persist longer, as Yang (1996) suggested that LSS could experience learning ability, but they preferred to believe and seek for help from their teachers, peers and parents, they lacked learning beliefs and perseverance and they would suffered failures. On the contrary, Students, who have 33 high self-efficacy, will possess strong sense of self-belief and high sense of self-regulation, they will try every chance to learn to practice English, even though they may fail sometimes, they can still adhere to pursuing new methods and adjust their own learning plan and learning activity with others‘ help. It reminds us that education at present has to focus on students‘ individual instruction and cultivate their independent thought and competence departing from the traditional training. Whereas stronger preference or affection will not make sure that students can behave better than others, students will monitor their performance based on their cognition and judgment to their ability. Once students appreciate themselves greatly and capably, they may comprehend learning further and perform well in a sense. Nowadays the chief assessment is test and especially going to a higher grade or a better school is not only teachers‘ but students‘ and family‘s goal, which have to strengthen students‘ inflexible memory and therefore weaken their psychological independence and ability in using strategies. So the students will lose themselves at sea and have difficulty in finding the exit when various questions are exposed to them. Especially to those students with low self-efficacy, the bad result will bore them to death and lessen their confidence in learning, and more important, they will give up learning later. Like Shih & Alexander‘s (2000) point that Asian students have been perceived by Western educators as reactive rather than proactive in their approaches to learning. Instead of initiating behavior to facilitate their own learning, they tend to respond to the instructions of the teacher. They also found that children‘s self-efficacy positively related to their math skill, mastery goal orientation and performance goal orientation. Griffiths & Parr (2001) reported that students rated social/communicative strategies usage as most frequent, followed by metacognitive, cognitive and affective strategies, and memory strategies as least frequent. The former is considered very important both by teachers and students. Theoretically, LLS have great potential in enhancing language-learning ability and, in practice, students have been shown to use a wide range of LLS, some of them quite frequently. Perhaps one way for us, as teachers, to avoid the postmodern displacement is to increase our awareness of our students‘ strategies usage and needs, in order to be able to facilitate the language-learning process more effectively in line with contemporary eclectic development in the theory and practice of English language teaching. As McComb and Marzano (1990) suggested, becoming aware of one‘s self as agent by using a 34 learning strategy is a way to increase self-efficacy, and those students who were aware that they used the sorting strategy for improved recall should have felt more efficacious for remembering than they did before they were trained in the strategy use. 35 Chapter 6 Conclusions 6.0 Introduction This part will generalize the study reports and draw conclusions from the results so as to arouse us and other educators to better English teaching and management further. 6.1 Findings in the Study As our study investigated that self-efficacy and learning strategies effect English achievement significantly. First, it verified our hypothesis that there was significant correlation between self-efficacy and learning strategies in learning English. But we had to admit that students‘ SELF was not strong enough and STRS were not widely applied, and gender difference only existed in SELB, which need to be trained and improved compulsively and individually. METS and SELA predicted more than other subdivisions in English achievements. That is to say, students regarded these as important factors influencing their learning and these were of benefit to their achievements. It appeared that one way to enhance self-efficacy of intermediate students is to promote self-regulated learning through instruction of learning strategies, tools that will assist students in their learning (Gaskill & Murphy, 2004; Schunk, 1981, 1990). It has been shown that a sense of ―self as agent‖ is developed when students are provided with specific tools or strategies that will enable them to experience success (Gaskill & Murphy, 2004). Second, SELF and STRS belong to the personal characteristics and behavior, although they affected SEAS significantly, the predictions of the two variables to SEAS were not high and salient, in particular the subdivisions of these two variables. This reflected that students‘ English achievements not only influenced by themselves but by other factors, such as school environment, family life and parents attitude. Finding concrete ways for us is an important step to facilitate the development of positive self-efficacy beliefs early on, especially at the beginning of learning English. Teaching strategies that have the potential for improving performance is a tool that may also boost students‘ judgment that they are more efficacious for performing a task in the future (Gaskill & Murphy, 2004). Gaskill & Murphy (2004) also quoted Wang and Richarde‘s findings that both performance and self-efficacy benefits from teaching second graders to use a paired-associate memory strategies, they found that 36 ― changes in memory –monitoring skills can elicit concomitant changes in strategy use and learning as well as self-efficacy‖ for second graders but not for fourth graders, who already used the strategy spontaneously. These studies provide a rationale for further exploration of the notion that teaching learning strategies early in the schooling experience may be a key to promotion of positive self-efficacy beliefs. Teaching a learning strategy moved students into a desired upward positive spiral, both in performance and expectation. Just as Schunk (1986) suggested knowledge that one has at one‘s disposal a method that can aid learning conveys to children a sense of personal control over learning outcomes, which can enhance self-efficacy. Find from this study support Bandura‘s claim that self-efficacy beliefs predicted academic outcomes and play an influential role in human agency. They also support the work of investigators who report significant relations between self-efficacy, academic performance and outcomes. The implication that arises is that researchers and school teachers should be looking to students‘ beliefs about their English capabilities as important predictors of other affective and of academic performance, for they are important components of motivation and of academic achievement (Pajares &Valiante‘s, 1997) In addition, Pajares and Johnson (1994) suggested that there may be a developmental component to the creation and evolution of English self-efficacy beliefs and that the predictive and mediational roles of self-efficacy may differ as a function of academic level and years of schooling. If self-efficacy beliefs perform the functions posited by social cognitive theory, our teachers have the responsibility to increase students‘ competence and confidence as students‘ progress through school. Like Pajares &Valiante‘s (1997) cited Bandura‘s argument: Educational practices should be gauged not only by the skills and knowledge they impart for present use but also by what they do to children‘s beliefs about their capabilities, which affects how they approach the future. Students who develop a strong sense of self-efficacy are well equipped to educate themselves when they have to rely on their own initiative (p.417). Bruning, Shell & Colvin (1995) supported Bandura‘s proposition that students‘ task self-efficacy was significantly higher at each successive grade level, but they found that the scores for component skills self-efficacy were basically the same in each grade. This suggested that the aspect of self-efficacy that developed across grades was belief in the capability of successfully reading various types of materials and successfully communicating in various formats rather than belief in the capability of doing specific reading or writing skills. 37 This phenomenon may be at work in the area of English with students who have unrealistically low English self-efficacy. If so, efforts to identify and alter inaccurate judgments should prove beneficial. And, if self-efficacy beliefs are a cause of variables such as English learning strategies, then interventions designed to improve English learning by decreasing anxiety may be useful to the degree that they increase students‘ confidence in their English learning ability. Assessing students‘ self-efficacy beliefs can provide teachers with important insights. For example, researchers have demonstrated that self-efficacy beliefs strongly influence the choice of majors and career decisions of college students (Randhawa, Beamer& Lundberg, 1993). In many cases, inaccurate perceptions of ability, and not lack of skill, are responsible for avoidance of certain courses and careers (Pajares & Valiante, 1997). Strategies also can develop with students‘ knowledge and cognition. ―If instructors systematically introduce and reinforce strategies that can help students speak the target language more effectively, their students may well improve their performance on language tasks. By preserving the explicit and overt nature of the strategies training teachers better enable students to consciously transfer specific strategies to new contexts. The study also seems to endorse the notion of integrating strategies training into the instructional plan and of embedding strategies into daily language tasks. In this way, the students get accustomed to having the teacher teach both the language content and the language learning and language use strategies at the same time (Cohen, 2000: 19).‖ 6.2 Limitations of the study First, the study should be replicated using a larger sample chosen from different part of various areas so as to obtain more accurate and even result and the sample also should be divided more evenly by gender. The sample was limited just because we want to solve some problems existing in our teaching, but for a thesis study it really need to be enlarged. Second, Bandura (Bandura, translation, 2003) posited that self-efficacy is developing and malleable, so it should be valuable and practical to examine students‘ SELF in learning English with the students‘ growth, and some students really were influenced by bad friends earlier, and some students in a class were neglected by their teacher. So it was not precise enough to make a judgment about students‘ self-efficacy. Third, We made up this questionnaire of self-efficacy based on teachers‘ self-efficacy, which had difference from students, so it was better to be adjusted for later use and the scales of the degree also need making more exact. 38 Fourth, the analysis on MSS, SS and LSS was too narrow and on HSTRS, HSELF and so on was rather shallow, which need to probe further. 6.3 Suggestion for further research It‘s not within the scope of this investigation to outline the ways that self-efficacy in learning English can be enhanced and English learning strategies can be trained. Instead this thesis can be an angle of the iceberg to show how important self-efficacy and strategies in learning English. This further enlightens us to explore the ways as to how to improve students‘ strategies. Anyway if students‘ self-efficacy assessments were to begin early in a students‘ learning career, inaccurate perceptions could be identified early and appropriate interventions could be undertaken. Indeed, one of self-efficacy theory‘s greatest contributions may well be that it has alerted teachers to the possibility of building up students‘ confidence. The aim of our education should bring about the students‘ overall necessity in their life that are intelligent efficacy beliefs and internal interest which make students‘ capable enough to continue their lifelong study. There is also a need to conduct a larger study so as to be able to run analysis according to the proficiency level of the students and other factors. It would also possible to compare and contrast language-learning strategies with language using strategies, especially in a specific task, such as in speaking, reading, writing, or listening. It would also useful to set out the investigation on substrategies. 6.4 Pedagogical implications An important pedagogical implication to emerge from our findings foregrounds the responsibility of teachers and educators to care for this responsibility related to the development of our students‘ self-efficacy and training of the use of strategies. According to Bandura‘s (Bandura, translation, 2000) viewpoints that students‘ self-efficacy is trained principally at school, and students‘ self-efficacy lies in the feedback that students receive from their teachers. As teachers, we should consider this an important function in teaching process, and also teach students certain strategies in certain context, which are better to be incorporated into teachers‘ normal classroom behavior, thus the strategies can be reinforced frequently and naturally, especially to the LSS. Their perception will be improved positively with the immediate feedback gradually and their progressing self-efficacy will bring them to use more strategies and higher achievement. That is to say, placing special emphasis 39 on fostering more positive patterns of self-efficacy in instruction and other interventions designed for low achievers, there for, may be useful for enhancing their motivation in learning English. Schunk (1981) demonstrated that treatment procedures providing problem-solving principles, practice in applying the principles, corrective feedback, and self-directed mastery were effective in developing skills and enhancing a sense of efficacy in children who had experienced profound failure in mathematics. Yet, clearly students are beginning to develop conceptions of themselves as students during the primary school years. Given that efficacy is most malleable early in the learning experience (Bandura, translation, 2003), what happens to them in the first few years of school will lead them to develop self-beliefs that will become increasingly stabilized. Some of the students didn‘t have strong self-efficacy resulting from their thprimary education. Out of teaching experience, we perceived the 8 graders varied much more from their psychology and mind, MSS, SS and LSS begin to be distinguished clearly, some of the contradict may result from students‘ various minds. In the first year they got into middle school, English was fresh and interesting to them, they were full of excitement and expectation, and they worked harder to try to show a new self from elementary school. But facing more subjects and more difficulties, they might fail after several tries. Under this circumstance, some might give up for they could not attract more care and attention from teachers, parents and friends. So the ones with stronger willpower in learning English would be outstanding and the ones always avoiding learning task would fall behind. What was worse, the latter would lack self-efficacy gradually and became poor in psychology and skills no matter how high their intelligence was. And according to Bandura‘s purpose that students are mainly influenced by school, teachers, and other environment (Bandura, translation, 2001), some self-efficacy researchers‘ (Pajares & Valiante, 1997) suggestions will be important for us that teachers should pay as much attention to students‘ perceptions of competence as to actual competence, such as self-efficacy and the use of strategies, for the perceptions may more accurately predict students‘ motivation and future academic choices. Bibliorgrapgy Anderman, E.M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in achievement goal orientations and perceived classroom structures across the transition to middle level schools. 40 Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 269-298. Bong M. (2001). Role of self-efficacy and task-value in predicting college students’ course performance and future enrollment intentions, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 553-570 Brown H.D. (1987). Principles of language learning and teaching. Prentice hall incorporation. Bruning, R.H., Shell, D. F., & Colvin, C. (1995). Self-efficacy, attribution, and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: grade-level and achievement-level differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87,386-398 Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year college student performance and adjustment, Journal of Educational Psychology, 93，55-64 Cohen, A.D. (2000). Strategies in learning and using a second language, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Gardner & Maclntyre, (1992). Students’ contributions to second language learning, Languag Teaching. 25, 214-219 Gaskill, P.J. & Murphy, P.K., (2004). Effects of a memory strategy on second-graders’ performance and self-efficacy, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(27-49) Gibson, S. & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: a construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582 Griffiths, C., & Parr, J. M. (2001). Language-learning strategies: theory and perception. ELT. 3, 246-253. Norwich, B. (1987). Self-efficacy and mathematics achievement: a study if their relation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79 (4) 384-387. McDonough, S.H. (1999). Learner strategies. Language Teaching, 32. Marsh, H.W., Roche, L.A., Pajares, F. & Miller, D. (1997). Item-specific efficacy judgment in mathematical problem solving: the downside of standing too close to trees in a forest, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22 Page-Voth, V. & Graham, S. (1999). Effects of goal setting and strategy use on the writing performance and self-efficacy of students with writing and learning problems, Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2),124-139 Pajares, F. & Miller M.D. (1994), role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational 41 Psychology, 86 ( 2), 193-203 Pajares, F. & Johnson M.J. (1994), Confidence and competence in writing: The role of self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 28 (3),314-331 Pietsch, J., Walker, R. & Chapman, E.,(2003), The relationship among self-concept, self-efficacy, and performance in mathematics during secondary school, Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 589-601 Pajares, F. & Valiante, G. (1997). Influence of self-efficacy on elementary students’ writing, The Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 353-359 Pajares, F. & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 124-139 Pintrich, P.R., & De Groot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance, Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40 Randhawa, B.S., Beamer, J.E. & Lundberg, I., (1993), Role of mathematics self-efficacy in the structural model of mathematics achievement, Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 41-48 Schunk, D.H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children’s achievement: a self-efficacy analysis, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 73, 93-105 Schunk, D.H. (1983). Ability versus effort attributional feedback: differential effects on self-efficacy and achievement, Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 848-856 Schunk, D.H., (1983). Developing children’s self-efficacy and skills: the roles of social comparative information and goal setting. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 76-86 Schunk, D.H., (1986). Verbalization and children’s self-regulated learning, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 349-367 Schunk,D. H. & Swarts, C. W. (1993). Goals and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and writing achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 337-354 Shih, S., & Alexander, J. M. (2000). Interacting effects of goal setting and self- or other-referenced feedback on children’s development of self-efficacy and cognitive skill within the Taiwanese classroom, Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 536-543. 42 Zimmerman, B.J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82,51-59 班杜拉，A. 1986年著，林颖，王小明，胡谊，庞维国等 译，思想和行动的社会 基础—社会认知论。 华东师范大学出版社2001。 班杜拉，A 1997年著，张小春，李凌，张小林，井世洁译(自我效能:控制的实 施。华东师范大学出版社 2003。 程晓堂，郑敏，英语学习策略。外语教学与研究出版社，2002。 程晓堂，王蔷，英语课程标准解读。 胡桂英，许百华，初中生学习归因、学习自我效能感、学习策略和学业成就关 系的研究。心理科学，2002(6) 李晓东， 张柄松，初二学生目标取向、自我效能及学习成绩与学业求助的关系。 心理发展与教育。2000 (4) 刘志华，郭占基，初中生的学业成就动机、学习策略与学业成绩关系研究。心 理科学，1993(16) 张春兴，教育心理学。浙江教育出版社 2002。 田宝， 郭得俊，考试自我效能感是考试焦虑影响考试成绩的中介变量。 心理 科学，2004(7) 杨心德，学习困难学生自我有效感的研究。心理科学，1996(19) 43 Index 初二学生学习英语的问卷调查 姓名: 性别: 这次问卷只用于教学研究，请根据实际情况认真作答。 第 一 部 分 每个句子后面有4 个数字，表示不同程度的理解，在你赞同的程度下圈出相应 的序号。 完全不同意 有点不同意 有点同意 完全同意 1 我相信自己有能力取得好成绩。 1 2 3 4 2 我学习英语的能力比班上其他同学强。 1 2 3 4 3 我有能力解决英语作业中的困难。 1 2 3 4 4 无论何时我都坚持学英语。 1 2 3 4 5 我学习英语的潜能还未完全开发。 1 2 3 4 6 我能学懂英语老师没有讲的内容。 1 2 3 4 7 我能排除外界干扰，有效学习英语。 1 2 3 4 8 我能给出比他人更好的英语问题。 1 2 3 4 9 英语成绩不好，但我坚信自己的能力。 1 2 3 4 10 我能及时掌握英语课堂的内容。 1 2 3 4 11 我比 班上其他同学的英语语感好。 1 2 3 4 12 英语上所取得的进步主要是因为我的努力。 44 1 2 3 4 13 我背诵英语课文，成绩有了提高。 1 2 3 4 14 我坚持英语写作，语法错误减少很多。 1 2 3 4 15 我能在课外找到更多的英语补充资料。 1 2 3 4 16 我能将前后知识联系在一起思考英语问题。 1 2 3 4 17 我能自觉做英语课后题而不管有没有布置。 1 2 3 4 18 我能系统整理出所学的英语知识框架。 1 2 3 4 19 我的英语笔记重点非常突出。 1 2 3 4 20 我喜欢以自问自答的方式来练习和巩固英语。 1 2 3 4 21 我不能归纳出每节英语课所学的内容。 1 2 3 4 22 英语课上我不能认真听讲。 1 2 3 4 第 二 部 分 本量表旨在调查你的英语学习策略使用情况。一共有40个陈述。请你判断这些 45 判断与你的实际情况的符合程度。每个陈述后面有五个数字，1 表示“完全不符 合”，2 表示“通常不符合”，3 表示“有时符合”，4 表示“通常符合”，5 表示 “完全符合”。请你圈出其中一种情况。 1我 根 据 自己的需要进行预习和复习英语。 1 2 3 4 5 2 在学习英语中我能集中注意力。 1 2 3 4 5 3 在学习英语中我能积极思考问题。 1 2 3 4 5 4 在学习英语中我善于记下知识要点。 1 2 3 4 5 5 在学习英语中我善于利用图画理解知识内容。 1 2 3 4 5 6 我能对英语知识要点主动进行整理和归纳。 1 2 3 4 5 7 我注意发现英语语音，语法及拼写的规律。 1 2 3 4 5 8 使用英语时，我注意发现自己的错误并进行适当的纠正。 1 2 3 4 5 9 我借助汉语知识来理解英语。 1 2 3 4 5 10 我常听英语磁带，看英文录像 1 2 3 4 5 11 我经常使用字典等工具书。 1 2 3 4 5 12 我常使用重复等记忆手段。 1 2 3 4 5 13 我会通过联想来学习英语单词。 1 2 3 4 5 14 我自己归纳英语句型和语法规则，自觉练习。 1 2 3 4 5 15 我借助图画来猜测英语词义。 1 2 3 4 5 46 16 我通过造句来复习新短语。 1 2 3 4 5 17 我有明确的英语学习目标。 1 2 3 4 5 18 我制订英语学习。 1 2 3 4 5 19 我知道自己在英语学习中的进步和不足。 1 2 3 4 5 20 我积极探索适合自己的英语学习方法。 1 2 3 4 5 21 我经常与其他人交流英语学习感受。 1 2 3 4 5 22 在课堂上我积极与同学用英语对话。 1 2 3 4 5 23 我会在课外寻找机会来使用英语。 1 2 3 4 5 24 我积极向他人请教问题。 1 2 3 4 5 25 我经常鼓励自己再接再厉学习英语。 1 2 3 4 5 26 我有意识的培养学习英语的兴趣。 1 2 3 4 5 27 我对英语和英语学习有积极的态度。 1 2 3 4 5 28我逐步树立起了学习英语的信心。 1 2 3 4 5 29 在英语学习中我努力克服害羞和焦虑心理。 1 2 3 4 5 30 在学习英语中我经常鼓励别人。 1 2 3 4 5 31 在说英语时我注意引导和帮助沉默的同学表达想法。 1 2 3 4 5 32我注意调整自己在学习英语时的情绪。 1 2 3 4 5 47 33 在与其他同学交谈时，我喜欢表达自己的情感。 1 2 3 4 5 34 在学习英语时，我乐于帮助同学解决疑难问题。 1 2 3 4 5 35 我很珍惜说英语的机会。 1 2 3 4 5 36 在与他人用英语交谈时，我希望把意思表达清楚。 1 2 3 4 5 37 在用英语交谈中，我经常借助手势、表情等进行表达。 1 2 3 4 5 38 交谈中遇到困难时，我会向他人请教。 1 2 3 4 5 39 在用英语交谈时，我很注意中西方文化习俗的差异。 1 2 3 4 5 40 交谈中，我会克服语言障碍，继续交谈下去。 1 2 3 4 5 48 在校就读期间研究成果 《英语学习策略调查》刊登于《中学英语教学参考》2004年第5期第27 页。陕西师范大学杂志社 《从学期评语到日常评价—发展性评价的应用》在《教师报》举办的第六届全国 教师教育教学论文大赛中获一等奖。 49