当代英语教学已经越来越重视学习者的主体作用，教会学生如何学习已经成为英语教学的重要内容之一。在英语教学中渗透学习策略的训练是当今英语教师面临的重要任务。然而，目前国内学习策略的研究的对象主要是大学生和中学生，专门针对小学生的研究还比较少。基于此，本研究旨在通过小学生英语学习策略的实证研究，探讨学习策略训练的效果。 本研究采用前测后测控制组实验设计方案。自变量是教授学习策略，因变量是英语考试成绩、学习策略使用频率和英语学习自信心。66名深圳市珠光小学的学生参加了此次实验，样本依据原自然班级被随机分配为实验组和控制组，实验组34人，控制组32人。笔者先通过问卷调查了解学生现有的策略，在此基础上，选定了11项需要训练的基本学习策略。结合小学生的年龄和认知特点，研究采用讲座式、小组讨论式、教学活动渗透式三者相结合的培训方案，为期6个月。本研究采用问卷、期末测试卷及半开放式访谈作为研究工具。问卷由研究者参照《课程标准》（2012）的基础上自行设计，用来跟踪受试者学习策略使用频率的发展变化；期末测试卷采用由区教育局统一组织的命题来测量学生实验前后的英语成绩变化；半开放式的访谈旨在收集受试对策略训练的观点和态度。 笔者对收集到的收据进行了定量和定性分析，结果显示：1） 策略培训有助于提高学生的策略使用频率，增强学生的策略使用意识。其中，认知策略、调控策略和交际策略的使用频率有显著提高，而资源策略的使用频率提高不明显。2）实验组与控制组之间的后测成绩差异没有达到显著水平。3）学习策略使用频率和英语学习成绩的关系呈正相关。4）高低分组学习策略使用频率具有显著差异，策略训练对低分组学生积极影响比高分组的大，表现在：低分组前后测成绩差异显著，而高分组差异不显著；低分组100%的学生觉得英语学习自信心提高了，而高分组只有50%；低分组100%的学生认为训练有用，其中60%认为很有用，而高分组有90%的学生认为训练有用，其中30%认为很有用。 以上研究发现表明，策略训练对小学生的英语学习有一定的促进作用。训练在提高学习策略使用频率上是有效的，在提高学习成绩上无明显效果，此外，策略训练对低分组的学生比高分组学生更有效。

Since the contemporary English language teaching tends to emphasize the student-centred teaching, teachers pay more and more attention to teach students how to learn by themselves. Thus, learning strategy training is an important task for the English teachers. However, the research on learning strategies in China mainly focuses on the college students and the middle school students. Little has been done to train learning strategies in primary schools. To bridge the gap, the present researcher tries to conduct an empirical study in a primary school. It aims to examine the effectiveness of the strategy training. The present study adopted the pre-test and post-test empirical research design with experimental group and control group. The independent variable is teaching learning strategies. The dependent variable is the final test English performance, the frequency in the use of learning strategies and students’ confidence in English learning. Sixty-six students from the Shenzhen Zhuguang Primary School participated in the study. They were randomly assigned to experimental group (EG) with 34 participants and control group (CG) with 32 participants. Based on a pre-training questionnaire which identified the strategies they often used, eleven strategies were selected for instruction. Concerning the age and cognitive characteristics of the students, the training selected three kinds of training approaches, which were doing lectures, organizing group discussion and doing the strategies-based instruction. The training process lasted for six months. Questionnaires, final tests and semi-structured interview were employed as instruments in this study. Questionnaires were designed by the present researcher based on the National Curriculum (2012) to track participants’ development of frequency in the use of learning strategies. The final test papers were selected from the papers set by the regional Education Bureau as measurements of participants’ increase of English performance. The semi-structured interview was employed to collect the participants’ attitude towards the strategy training. After collecting the data, the present researcher made an analysis combining the quantitative and qualitative approaches. The findings showed that strategy training improved the participants’ frequency of strategy use and enhanced the participants’ awareness of strategy use. Besides, the frequency of cognitive strategy, control strategy and communicative strategy had been greatly improved, while the improvement of the resource strategy use was not obvious. It was also discovered that the English performance differences between the experimental group and the control group did not reach a significant level. In addition, it was found that the relationship between the frequency of strategy use and the students’ English performance is positive correlation. As for the training influence on the high level students and low level students, the frequency of strategy use differences between them reach a significant level. It had greater positive impact to the low level students. It lied on the English performance differences between the pre-test and the post-test of the low level students reached a significant level, while the high level students didn’t; 100% of the low level students held that their confidence in English learning had been improved while only 50% of the high level students held the same view; 100% of the low level students held the training was effective, among them 60% held it was very effective, while 90% of the high level students held the training was effective, among them 30% held it was very effective. These findings suggest that to some extent strategy training has a facilitative effect on English learning to primary school learners. It is effective to enhance the frequency of strategy use while it is ineffective to improve the participants’ English performance. In addition, the training is more effective to the low level students than to the high level students.