英语论文网

are. ( Pajares,1996)
........

Chapter Three Methodology.....23
3.1 Questions....23
3.2 Participants........23
3.3 Materials.... 26
3.4 Instruments........26
3.5 Procedures..........29
Chapter Four Results and Discussion......34
4.1 The Effect of Positive Self-evaluation on Writing Self-efficacy........... 34
4.2 The Effect of Positive Self-evaluation on Writing Performance..........38
4.3 The Relationship between English Writing Self-efficacy and English WritingPerformance.....43
Chapter Five Conclusion...........46
5.1 Major Findings..........46
5.2 Pedagogical Implications..........47
5.3 Limitations of the Study...........48
5.4 Suggestions for Future Research.....48

Chapter Four Results and Discussion

As stated in previous chapter, data collected from pre-test, post-test,pre-questionnaire and post-questionnaire has been analyzed by SPSS 13.0 and thenthe results are presented in this chapter, followed by the discussion about theunderlying reasons for such results in detail.

4.1 The Effect of Positive Self-evaluation on Writing Self-efficacy

In this study, the students’ writing self-efficacy was researched by scores on thewriting self-efficacy questionnaire. Table 4.1 shows the mean scores of each categoryin the questionnaire.From the Table 4.1, we can see several changes: Firstly, at the end of thesemester, the writing self-efficacy beliefs of all the students were increased. Secondly,at the beginning of the term, namely, in the pre-questionnaire the two classes hadsimilar total mean scores in writing self-efficacy questionnaires ( EC= 2.5741 ,CC=2.5807 ), which indicated that the two classes had similar writing self-efficacybeliefs prior to the experiment. However, at the end of the semester the writingself-efficacy belief in the two classes was different largely. The difference of the totalmean scores between the two classes was 0.8979 (EC= 3.8971, CC= 2.9992), whichwas bigger than that in the pretest. The change of total mean scores demonstrated thatthe EC has made great progress in writing self-efficacy belief after the fourteenweeks’positive self-evaluation training.As we can see in Table 4.2, in the pretest, the two classes had similar writingself-efficacy beliefs in the aspects of overall writing ability (EC= 2.5741, CC=2.5807), the ability of organization (EC= 2.4232, CC= 2.5763) and the ability oflanguage of use (EC= 2.6318, CC= 2.7832).What’s more, it is not difficult to find thewriting self-efficacy of CC was higher than that of EC in the three aspects. In thepost-test, the mean scores of experimental class were higher than that of control classin terms of overall writing ability (EC= 3.8971, CC= 2.9992), the ability oforganization (EC= 3.8847, CC= 2.9231) and the ability of language use (EC=3.9265,CC= 3.1479). And for experiment class the discrepancy between the pretest andposttest was larger than the control class in terms of the overall writing ability, theability of organization and the ability of language use ( overall writing ability: EC=1.3230, CC= 0.4385; the ability of organization: EC= 1.4615, CC= 0.3468 ; the abilityof language use: EC= 1.2947 , CC= 0.3647 ).