英语论文网

.. 28
3.3.2 The Writing Proficiency Test...... 29
3.3.3 Interview ....... 31
3.4 Research Procedure...... 31
3.5 Data Collection ....... 32
Chapter Four Results Analysis and Discussion....... 33
4.1 Results Analysis of the Questionnaire ....... 33
4.1.1 Research Question 1..... 33
4.1.2 Research Question 2..... 38
4.1.3 Research Question 3..... 40
4.2 Results Analysis of the Writing Proficiency Test...... 41
4.3 Results Analysis of the lnterview..... 41
4.4 Discussion ..... 42
Chapter Five Conclusion ........ 44
5.1 Major Findings of the Research....... 44
5.2 Pedagogical Implications ....... 45
5.3 Limitations of the Research ........ 48
5.4 Prospects and Suggestions for the Future Research ...... 49

Chapter Four Results Analysis and Discussion

4.1 Results Analysis of the Questionnaire
In this stage, the author will make full use of data which have been collected to analyzethe three questions mentioned below one by one in detail and try to draw some conclusions. What the table above (see Table 4.2) can indicate is that the level of the participants’metacognitive knowledge in English writing is not high. Compared to the total score 140, themean score 92.3 is a little low. The statistics collected show that the Std. deviation is 9.13,indicating that there is a sharp difference form the mean among each subject’s language use.The highest score collected is 120, the lowest score is 42, and the range is 78, showing that eachsubject’s matacognitive knowledge has a rather big difference. What the results above in Table 4.3 represent is that the mean of the metacognitiveknowledge and the each variable of the metacognitive knowledge: the knowledge of person, theknowledge of task, and the knowledge of strategy. What we can know from the table 4.3 is thatthe metacognitive knowledge’s overall mean is 2.77, indicating that the situation of themetacognitive knowledge is in a middle level. The task knowledge’ mean is the highest, that ofthe person knowledge is in the middle level, and the mean of the strategy knowledge is at anend. The conclusion that can be drawn is that the participants’ knowledge about writing tasks isbetter than their knowledge about writing strategies.

…………

Conclusion

On the basis of the metacognitive knowledge’s framework which was put forward byFlavell (1979), the analysis of the subjects’ metacognitive information collected in theexperiment, and the relationships between metacognitive knowledge and English writings, theauthor can present three major findings.Firstly, the first answer to the questionnaire indicates that non-English majors’metacognitive knowledge is weak to some extent. The average level of their metacognitiveknowledge is low. To move forward a single step, one’s metacognitive knowledge is positivelyrelated to one’s EFL writing proficiency, and the improvement of one’s metacognitiveknowledge can promote one’s EFL writing proficiency in turn. Therefore, it is necessary forteachers to try all kinds of methods to improve the students’ metacognitive knowledge.Secondly, metacognitive knowledge is positively moderately connected with the Englishwritings. Of the three variables of the metacognitive knowledge: the knowledge of person, thekno本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。