【正文】 p A.57975.47210Group B.9067610SelfencouragementGroup A.5627310Group B.7710010As a whole, the more effective learners use strategies more frequently than the less effective learners, except for the use of repetition strategy, translation strategy and selfencouragement strategy. Less effective learners tend to use both repetition strategy (M=) and translation strategy (M=) more frequently, but there is no difference between the two groups in use of selfencouragement strategy. The means of self encouragement strategy of these two groups are the same, both recorded .Among all the 20 strategies investigated in this research, only five strategies show that there are significant differences between these two groups, namely selfmonitoring, repetition, applied, categorization, and cooperation strategy. Effective learners reported using selfmonitoring, applied, categorization, and cooperation strategies significantly more often than the less effective learners, while the less effective learners were more positive in using repetition strategy.In this study, the effective learners and the less effective learners distinguished most in the use of selfmonitoring and applied strategies. Monitoring, in Nisbet and Shucksmit’s view, is the key process that distinguishes effective learners from less effective learners (O’Malley, . amp。 Chamot, ., 1999:48). The effective learners are more aware of what they are doing, especially in learning from their errors by asking corrections when they think these are needed. However, the less effective learners seem to pay no attention to their errors and may make the same mistakes over and over again. As to applied strategies, it is said that only after you put what you have learnt into use can you really master it. This is also true in vocabulary learning. It is very mon to hear students plain that they often forget the words they have recited repeatedly after a few days. That is because they seldom use them. Only when the new words are put into use can they be remembered for a long time or even forever. This shows the importance of using applied strategy. And the result here proves this point again.From what have been discussed in the previous section, categorization strategy is the least monly used strategy among cognitive strategies. Despite of this, the effective learners seem to use this strategy significantly more often than the less effective learners. The effective learners reported prefer memorizing words by grouping them based on their mon attributives, such as according to the hyponymy, synonym, antonym or syntax function.The less effective learners were less likely to use the cooperation strategy. This maybe because they thought they are poor in English, and they dare not municate with others. Therefore, they may be less likely to work with peers or to take part in group activities.The only significant strategy that the less effective learners use more often than the effective learners is repetition strategy. The reason for this may be because it is the most direct way of learning words. However, the effective learners may apply a more flexible and appropriate way to learn. The correlation analysis between VLS and learning outeTable 7: Correlation between TEM 4 and Vocabulary testTestsTEM 4Vocabulary TestVocabulary Test.538*1TEM 41.538*Table 7 shows that vocabulary test is significant correlated with TEM4 (r=. 538*). Although these two tests cannot reveal thoroughly the overall language proficiency of the students, it is for sure that vocabulary learning is a positive predictor of students’ English petence.Simple correlation among 20 independent variables (5 metacognitive strategies, 12 cognitive strategies and 3 socialaffective strategies) and one dependent variable (English learning oute, consisting of vocabulary test scores and TEM4 scores) were obtained (See Table 8 and Table 9).Table 8: Correlation among strategies and academic achievementStrategiesP earson CorrelationSig. (2tailed)Metacognitive Strategies.516*.020Cognitive Strategies.578**.008SocialAffective Strategies.385.094Statistics in Table 8 show that metacognitive strategies (r=. 516*) and cognitive strategies (r=. 578**) were significantly and positively correlated with the learning oute, while the correlation between socialaffective strategies and learning oute was insignificantly, although it was not negative.Table 9: Correlation among substrategies and academic achievementStrategiesPearson CorrelationSig. (2tailed)Planning.432Selfmanagement.219.353Selective attention.338145Selfevaluation.391.088Selfmonitoring.621**.003Dictionary strategy.478*.033Repetition*.020Notetaking.305.191Elaboration.481*.032Key word.313.179Applied.698**.001Imagery.431.058Media strategy.489*.029Categorization.685**.001Guessing.395.084Translation.473Contextualization.415.069Cooperation.547*.013Question for clarification.197.405Selfencouragement.918Table 9 gives us more detailed information about the correlations between learning oute and each substrategy. Among all the 20 strategies, except planning, repetition, translation and selfencouragement strategies, all the other 16 strategies are positive related to learning oute. Selfmonitoring (r=. 621**), applied (r=. 698**), categorization (r=. 685**) and cooperation strategy (r=. 547*) turn out to best predict the overall proficiency in language learning. Dictionary(r=. 478*), elaboration(r=. 481*), and media strategy (r=. 489*) also enter the equation as significant positive predictor. However, repetition strategy(r=*) emerged as significant but negative predictors of overall proficiency. These results are quite consistent with what has been discussed in the previous section, that is effective learners use selfmonit