为了检验元认知策略与英语成绩之间的相关性，对英语成绩和三类元认知策略进行了相关分析。研究结果表明，英语成绩与0.01级规划、监控和评价策略之间存在显著正相关（见表5）。这一结果与邓晓芳和陈静的一致性（2004）。然而，张宣（2005）发现评价和监测不与英语成绩的相关性，虽然这两种策略的使用相对频繁的学生。他认为这可能是由于这样的事实，他们只能与其他策略的帮助。元认知策略与英语成绩之间的皮尔森相关系数为0.645，在0.01的水平上显著（双侧），这表明两因素之间存在正相关。邓晓芳（2004）指出，元认知策略是学生的学习水平密切相关，在元认知策略的使用差异是影响他们英语水平的一个重要因素。黄水美（2006）也发现皮尔森相关系数的元认知策略与英语成绩之间是0.604 * *。元认知策略与英语成绩之间存在显著正相关。所以，这些发现与邓晓芳的一致性（2004）和黄水美（2006）。然而，吴一安（1993）和于翔连（2006）发现没有元认知策略与英语成绩的关系。所以这些发现与他们的不一致。
To test the correlation between metacognitive strategies and English scores, a correlation analysis was performed between English scores and the three categories of metacognitive strategies. Research results show that there is a positive and significant correlation between English scores and planning, monitoring and evaluation strategies at the 0.01 level (See Table 5). This result is in accordance with Deng Xiaofang and Chenjing’s (2004). However, Zhangxuan (2005) finds both evaluation and monitoring are not correlated with English scores, although these two strategies are used relatively frequently by the students. He accounts that it may be due to the fact that they can only take effect with the help of other strategies.The Pearson correlation coefficient between metacognitive strategies and English scores is 0.645**, statistically significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), which indicates that two factors are positively related to each other. Deng Xiaofang (2004) points out that metacognitive strategies are closely related to the students’ learning proficiency and the difference in using metacognitive strategies is an important factor affecting their English levels. Huang Shuimei (2006) also finds the Pearson correlation coefficient between metacognitive strategies and English scores is 0.604**. It is obvious that there is a positive significant correlation between metacognitive strategies and English scores. So these findings are in accordance with Deng Xiaofang’s (2004) and Huang Shuimei’s (2006). However, Wu Yi’an (1993) and Yu Xianglian (2006) find that there is no relation between metacognitive strategies and English scores. So these findings do not agree with theirs.