英语写作是综合语言能力的反映，被二语学习者认为是充满挑战性的一项技能。从社会认知视角出发，二语写作并非简单线性过程，而是需要自我调节的复杂过程，受到个人、环境和行为因素的相互作用，涉及到作者的认知、情感等多方面因素。其中，写作自我效能感和写作自我调节学习策略被认为是影响写作水平的重要因素，但以往研究鲜有关注中国英语专业大学生群体。因此，本研究试图探讨在中国英语作为外语背景中，英语专业大学生写作自我效能感、写作自我调节策略与写作水平的相关性。

本研究旨在探讨中国英语专业大学生写作自我效能感与写作水平及写作自我调节策略与写作水平的关系，具体研究问题包括：在中国二语学习语境中,（1）写作自我效能感和写作自我调节学习策略与写作水平有什么关联？（2）高水平写作者与低水平写作者在写作自我效能感和写作自我调节学习策略使用方面有什么不同？（3）写作自我效能感和写作自我调节学习策略分别能在多大程度上预测写作水平？

为回答以上三个研究问题，本研究采用了混合研究方法。第一阶段为量化数据收集，通过整群抽样方式选取了73名来自北京某重点大学二年级英语专业学生，以《英语写作自我效能感量表》、《英语写作自我调节学习策略量表》和写作水平测试为研究工具，通过SPSS 26.0对数据进行相关性、独立样本t检验及线性回归分析。第二阶段为质性数据收集，通过目的性抽样主要基于其写作水平选取了其中4名学生，以有声思维和回溯性访谈为研究工具，通过NVivo 12对数据进行主题编码分析。

基于量化和质性数据分析，研究发现：（1）写作自我效能感与写作水平存在中等程度相关，写作自我调节学习策略与写作水平也存在中等程度相关。其中，英语写作使用自我效能感和写作环境自我调节学习策略与写作水平的相关性最高；（2）高水平写作者与低水平写作者在写作自我效能感、写作自我调节学习策略使用方面存在显著差异。高水平写作者的自我效能感更高且会使用更多的自我调节学习策略，尤其体现在英语写作使用自我效能感、写作环境自我调节学习策略和写作行为自我调节学习策略三方面；（3）写作自我效能感和写作自我调节学习策略均对写作水平有独立预测作用，分别能解释24%和9.9%的写作水平差异。其中，英语写作使用自我效能感和自我调节写作自我效能感能独立预测写作成绩差异，但写作自我调节学习策略的各分维度则不能。

基于发现，本文探讨了对提高英语写作的启示，即如何通过培养学生的写作自我效能感和写作自我调节学习策略提高其水平。最后，本文总结了研究局限性和对未来研究建议。

English writing reflects an individual’s comprehensive language proficiency and is regarded as a challenging skill for second language learners. From the perspective of social cognitive theory, writing is not a simple linear process, but a complex self-regulation process influenced by individual, environmental, and behavioral factors, involving the writer’s cognitive, affective, and other factors. Among them, writing self-efficacy and writing self-regulated learning (SRL) strategies are recognized as two crucial factors of writing proficiency, yet scant attention has been given to Chinese English majors in previous research. Therefore, this study attempts to investigate the relationship between writing self-efficacy, writing SRL strategies, and writing proficiency in the Chinese English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context.

This study aims to examine the relationship between writing self-efficacy and writing proficiency, as well as writing SRL strategies and writing proficiency in the Chinese EFL context. Three research questions are proposed: (1) What are the correlations between learners’ writing self-efficacy, writing SRL strategies, and writing proficiency in the Chinese EFL context? (2) What are the differences between learners with high and low writing proficiency in terms of writing self-efficacy and writing SRL strategies in the Chinese EFL context? (3) To what extent do learners’ writing self-efficacy and writing SRL strategies predict writing proficiency in the Chinese EFL context?

To address the above three research questions, a mixed research method was employed. The first stage involved quantitative data collection, wherein 73 English major sophomores from a key university in Beijing were selected through cluster sampling. Research tools included Questionnaires of English Writing Self-efficacy (QEWSE), Questionnaires of English Writing Self-regulated Learning Strategies (QEWSRLS) and writing proficiency tests. SPSS 26.0 was used for correlation analyses, independent sample T-tests and linear regression analyses. In the second stage, qualitative data were gathered. Through purposeful sampling, four students were selected primarily based on their writing proficiency. Research tools included think-aloud protocols and retrospective interviews. Theme coding of qualitative data was conducted using NVivo 12.

Based on the analysis of quantitative and qualitative data, this study yielded the following findings: (1) A moderate positive correlation was observed between writing self-efficacy and writing proficiency, as well as between writing SRL strategies and writing proficiency. Notably, self-efficacy for the use of English writing and environmental SRL strategies demonstrated the strongest correlation with writing proficiency. (2) Significant differences were identified in writing self-efficacy and the use of writing SRL strategies between low and high proficiency writers. High proficiency writers exhibited higher self-efficacy levels and greater use of writing SRL strategies, particularly in the domains of self-efficacy for the use of English writing, environmental SRL strategies, and behavioral SRL strategies. (3) Both writing self-efficacy and writing SRL strategies independently predicted writing proficiency, with writing self-efficacy accounting for 24% of the variance and writing SRL strategies explaining 9.9% of the variance in writing proficiency. Specifically, self-efficacy for the use of English writing and self-efficacy for self-regulation exhibited individual predictive effects, whereas the sub-scales of writing SRL strategies did not.

Based on these findings, this study discusses the implications for improving English writing, particularly in terms of enhancing students’ writing proficiency by cultivating their writing self-efficacy and writing SRL strategies. The limitations of this study and suggestions for future research are summarized in the end.