高中教師與學生思考風格及其教學互動之關係

論文摘要

本研究旨在依據R.J.Sternberg心理自我管理理論，探討國小教師與學生思考風格及其在教學互動之關係，其主要目的有六：(1)探討教師與學生不同的背景因素在思考風格上的差異情形。（2）探討教師背景因素、教師思考風格與教學行為之關係。(3)探討教師教學行為、學生思考風格、學習知覺滿意與學業成就的關係。（4）檢驗老師的思考風格與學生思考風格的相似性與學習知覺滿意度、學業成就的關係。（5）探討學生思考風格的改變情形。（6）探討教師思考風格對學生思考風格的影響。
本研究對象，第一部份，為高雄市國小教師254人，第二部分，為高雄市國小教師14人，學生507人。研究工具，在教師部分施以「教師思考風格量表」和「教學自評量表」；學生部分施以「思考風格量表」和「學習知覺滿意檢核表」；並實施教室觀察以瞭解教師生教學互動之歷程。資料之分析採用Pearson積差相關、t-test、Hotelling’s T ,one-way MANOVA、典型相關、重複量數、單因子多變量共變數等統計方法進行分析。研究結果發現如下：
一、 在教師背景因素中，就性別而言，女性教師在司法型與自由型的得分均高於男性；其餘背景變項之教師思考風格在組間差異不顯著。
二、 在學生背景因素中，就性別而言，女生在行政型、司法型與地方型的得分均高於男生，而男生在全球型的得分高於女生；其餘背景變項之學生思考風格在組間差異不顯著。
三、 國小學生在後測時比前測更傾向「立法型」、「全球型」、「自由型」、「保守型」的思考風格。此外，國小學生在前測的思考風格「行政型」、「保守型」得分最高，「全球型」得分最低。同時國小學生在後測的思考風格「行政型」得分最高，「全球型」得分最低。
四、 教師思考風格對學生思考風格改變的情形為中立法教師的學生比低立法教師的學生較具有立法型思考風格；高行政和低行政教師的學生比中行政教師的學生較具有行政型思考風格；高自由型教師的學生比中自由型和低自由型教師的學生更具有立法型、行政型、自由型、保守型思考風格。
五、 教師背景因素與教師思考風格並無典型相關，而教師思考風格與其教學行為具有顯著典型相關，教師思考風格的三個典型因素可解釋教學行為的總變異量為43.4%。
六、 教師教學行為與學生思考風格之關係，在低記憶教學組的教師其學生較傾向行政型、地方型與立法型；中創意教學組的教師其學生比高創意教師組的學生較傾向全球型；高制訂作業的教師其學生較傾向行政型、立法型與自由型。
七、 學生對教師教學行為之學習知覺滿意，組間存有差異。低創意與低啟發教學行為組之教師其學生學習滿意度較高，而高分析與高制定作業教學行為組之教師其學生學習滿意度較高。
八、 學業成就與思考風格有顯著相關，高學業成就較偏向立法型、行政型、自由型和保守型，而低學業成就較偏向全球型。
九、 師生思考風格一致性高，學生的學習滿意高，但在學業成就並無組間差異。

Study of Teachers’ and Students’ Thinking Styles and their Interactions in Instruction

Abstract

The purposes of this study were (1) to compare the relationship among teachers and students’ thinking styles and their background. (2) to explore the relationship among teachers’ background, teachers’ thinking styles, and teaching behaviors. (3) to investigate the relationship among teaching behavior, students’ thinking styles, learning perception satisfaction, and achievement. (4) to explore the influences of different matching of teachers’ thinking styles and students’ thinking styles on learning perception satisfaction and achievement. (5) to investigate the changing condition of students’ thinking styles. (6) to explore the impact of teachers’ thinking styles on students’ thinking styles.
Two groups of subjects were arranged: with one including 254 high school teachers in Taiwan area, and the other including 14 teachers and their 507 students in Koashuing. Teachers were asked to fill out Thinking Styles Questionnaire for Teacher (TSQT” and Teaching Behavior Scale (TBS), while students Thinking Styles Questionnaire (TSQ) and Learning Perception Satisfaction Check List (LPSCL). Qualitative research (Classroom observation) is applied to explore the interaction of teachers and students. The data were analyzed by Pearson’s product-moment correlation, t-test, canonical correlation, Hotelling’s T , one-way MANOVA, Repeat Measure Analysis, and Multivariate Analysis of Covariance.
The conclusion were drawn as follows:
1. On teachers’ background: (1) There were significant differences between male and female in judicial, and liberal styles. (2) There were no significant differences between high, mid and low years groups in thinking styles. (3) There were significant differences between high, mid and low age groups in executive thinking styles. (4) There were significant differences between high, mid and low father‘s education in conservative thinking styles. (5) There were significant differences between high, mid and low mother’s education in conservative thinking styles.
2. On students’ background: (1) There were significant differences between male and female in executive, judicial, and local thinking styles. (2) Birth orders, father’s education, and mother’s education have no significant differences with thinking styles.
3. Students’ is more inclined to legislative, global, liberal, and conservative styles in pre-test than in post-test.
4. Teachers’ background had no canonical correlation with teachers’ thinking styles. Teachers’ thinking styles had canonical correlation with teaching behavior. Three canonical factors of Teachers’ thinking styles efficacy explained 43.4% of all teacher behavior.
5. Teachers’ legislative, executive, and liberal thinking styles had significant effects on students’ thinking styles.
6. Some teaching behavior had significant correlation with students’ thinking styles.
7. Teaching behavior had significant correlation with learning perception satisfaction, but not achievement.
8. Teachers’ thinking styles had significant correlation with
students’ thinking styles.
9. Matching of teacher-student’s thinking styles had significant correlation with learning perception satisfaction and achievement.

第一章　緒論 1
　　第一節　研究動機 1
　　第二節　名詞解釋 5
第三節　研究限制 9
第二章　文獻探討 10
　　第一節　思考風格的概念 10
　　第二節　學生思考風格改變及其影響因素 23
　　第三節　思考風格與其在教學歷程上的關係 25　　
第三章　研究設計 29
　　第一節　研究架構 29
　　第二節　研究假設 31
　　第三節　研究對象 33
　　第四節　研究工具 36
第四節　資料分析與處理 40
第四章　研究結果 42
　　第一節　教師思考風格、教學行為與學生思考風格之現況分析 42
　　第二節　教師個人背景變項在思考風格的差異 46
　　第三節　學生個人背景變項在思考風格的差異 50
第四節 前後測學生思考風格之關係 53
　　第五節　教師思考風格對學生思考風格改變情形之關係 58
第六節　背景因素、教師思考風格與教學行為之關係 62
第七節　教學行為、學生思考風格、學習知覺滿意與學業成就之關係 67
第八節　教師與學生思考風格的相似性與學習知覺滿意、學業成就之關係 76
第九節　教室觀察 78
第五章　討論、結論與建議 80
第一節 討論 80
第二節　結論 98
　　第三節　建議 102
參考文獻 107
附錄一　思考風格量表 117
附錄二　教師思考風格量表 121
附錄三　教學自評量表 124
附錄四　學習知覺滿意檢核表 127
附錄五　教室觀察量表 128
附錄六　教室編碼 129

參考書目
壹、中文部分
丁振豐(民78)。場地獨立認知型式個別差異現象及其對教學歷程的影響之探討。台南師院學報，22，135-150。
王千倖(民88)。「合作學習」和「問題導向學習」--培養教師及學生的科學創造力。教育資料與研究，28，31-39。
李穎純(民88)。花蓮縣國小學童思考風格及其影響因素之研究。 國民教育研究所碩士論文。
吳百薰(民87)。國小學生學習風格相關因素之研究。國立台中師範學院國門教育研究所碩士論文。
翁秋玲（民89）。高中教師與學生思考互動及其教學互動之關係。國立中山大學教育研究所。
高翠霞、蔡崇建（民88）。學習風格與教學設計。教育資料與研究，29，46-49。
陳密桃(民73)。大學生認知能力、創造思考能力及教師教學方法對學生學習行為之影響。教育學刊，5，173-211。
張玉成（民87）。資優兒童思考特質及其培育之研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。
張景媛(民78)。教學類型與學習類型適佩性研究暨學生學習適應理論模式的驗證。教育心理學報，21，113-172。
黃玉枝（民80）。學習風格與資優教育。資優教育季刊，40，13-18。
郭建華（民90）。九年一貫課程改革另一章。康軒教育雜誌，43，18-22。
鄭英耀(民81)。國小教師創造思考、批判思考及其相關因素之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文。
鄭英耀(民83)。國小教師思考與學生行為關係之研究。中國測驗學會測驗年刊，41，221-240。
鄭英藥、桂慶中、翁秋玲、葉明芬、陳雅文（民89）。高中學生思考風格之研究：台灣與香港的比較。社會科學季刊，2（3），97-112。
鄭英耀、翁秋玲、陳月梅、葉明芬、曾秀雯、蔡佩紋(民89)。高雄市高中職學生思考風格之分析。國立交通大學教育學程：第二屆中等學校之教學與學習學術研討會論文集，198-217。

貳、英文部份
Albaili, M. A. (1995). An Arabic version of the Study Process Questionnaire: Reliability and Validity. Psychological Reports, 77, 1083-1089.
Andrews, J., Violate, C., Rabb, K., & Hollingsworth, M. (1994). A validity study of Biggs’ three-factor model of learning approaches: A confirmatory factor analysis employing a Canadian sample. British Journal of Educational Psychology,64, 179-185.
Brown, J.H., Shavelson, R. J. (1994). Does your testing match your teaching style? Instructor, 86-89.
Cano-Garcia, F., & Hughes, E. H. (2000). Learning and thinking styles: an analysis of their interlationship and influence on academic achievment. Educational Psychology,20,413- 430.
Dai, D.Y., & Feldhusen, J. F.(1999). A validation study of the thinking styles inventory: Implications for gifted education. Roeper Review, 21(4), 302-308.
Ensminger, M.E., & Slusarcick, A.L. (1992). Paths to high school graduation or dropout: A longitudinal study of a first-grade cohort. Sociology of Education, 65, 95-113.
Feuerstein, A. (2000). School characteristics and parent involvement: Influences on participation in children’s schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(1), 29-40.
Finn, J.D., & Rock, D.A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221-234.
Furnham, A. (2000). Parents’ estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligence. The British Psychology Society,18, 583-594.
Ganzach, Y. (2000). Parents’ education, cognitive ability, educational expectations, and educational attainment: Interactive effects. The British Psychology Society, 70, 419-441.
Gottfried, A.E., Fleming, J.S., Gottfried, A.W. (2001). Continuity of academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through late adolescence: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 3-13.
Greenwald, A.G., & Gillmore, G.M. (1997). No pain, no gain? The importance of measuring course workload in students’ rating of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 743-751.
Grigorenko,E.L.,& Sternberg,R.J.(1997). Styles of thinking, abilities, and academic performance. Exceptional Children, 63(3), 295-312.
Harackiewicz, J.M., Barron, K.E., Tauer, J.M., Carter, S.M., & Elliot, A.J. (2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2),316-330.
Hill, J., Puurula, A., Sitko-Lutek, A.,& Rakowska, A.(2000). Cognitive Style and socialization: An exploration of learned sources of style in Finland, Poland and the UK. Educational Psychology, 20(3), 285-305.
Huang,J.,& Sisco,B.(1994). Thinking styles of Chinese and American adult students in higher education: A comparative study. Psychological Reports,74,475-480.
Huebner, E.S., & McCullough, A. (2000). Correlates of school satisfaction among adolescents. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(5), 331-335.
Huang, J., & Chao, L.(1994). Japanese college students’ thinking styles. Psychological Reports, 75, 143-146.
Huang, J., & Sisco, B. R. (1994). Thinking Style of Chinese & American Adult Students in Higher Education: A Comparative Study. Psychological Reports, 74, 475-480.
Kahn, E.A. (2000). A case study of assessment in a grade 10 English course. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(5), 276-286.
Kagan, J. (1971). Change and Continuity in Infancy. New York: Wiley.
Kember, D., & Leung, D.Y.P. (1998). The dimemsionality of approaches to learning : An investigation with confirmatory factor analysis on the structure of the SPQ and LPQ. British Journal of Educational Psychology,68, 395-407.
Lee-Corbin, H. (1993). Teacher expectations and the able child. Early Child Development and Care, 98, 73-78.
Milgram, N., & Toubiana, Y. (1999). Academic anxiety, academic procrastination, and parental involvement in students and parents. The British Journal of Educational Psychology,69(3),345-359.
Messick, S. (1994). The matter of style: manifestations of personality in cognition, learning, and teaching. Educational Psychologist, 29(3), 121-136.
Murray-Harvey, R. (1994). Learning styles and approaches to learning: distinguishing between concepts and instrument. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 373-388.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Slate, J., Paterson, F., Watson, M., & Schwartz, R. (2000). Factors associated with underachievement in educational research course. Research in the Schools, 7, 53-65.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Bailey, P., Daley, C.E. (2000). Cognitive, Affective, Personality, and Demographic Predictors of Foreign-language achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(1), 3-15.
Park,C.C.(1997).Learning styles preferences of Korean, Mexican, Armenian-American, and Anglo students in secondary schools. NASSP Bulletin,81,103-111.
Palladino,P.,Poli,P.,Masi,G.,& Marcheschi,M.(1997). Impulsive-reflective cognitive style,matacognition,and emotion in adolescence. Perceptual and Skills,84,47-57.
Rayner, S., & Riding, R. (1996). Cognitive style and school refusal. Educational Psychology,16(4),445-451.
Rayner, S., & Riding, R. (1997). Towards a categoriesation of cognitive styles and learning styles. Educational Psychology,17(1-2),5-27.
Redding, S. G. (1980). Congnition as an aspect of culture and its relation to management process: An exploratory view of the Chinese case. Journal of Management Studies,5, 127-148.
Remedios, R., Lieberman, D.A., & Benton, T.G. (2000). The effects of grades on course enjoyment: Did you ge the grades you want? The British Psychological Society, 70, 353-368.
Ridding, R.J. (1997). On the nature of cognitive styles. Educational Psychology, 17(1-2), 29-49.
Riding, R.J., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles---an overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11, 193-215.
Riding, R. J., & Wigley, S. (1997). The relationship between cognitive style and personality in further education studies, Personality and Individual Difference, 23, 379-389.
Rose, R. J., Hall, C. W., Bolen, L. M. , & Webster, R. E. (1996). Locus of control and college students’ approaches to learning. Psychological Reports, 79, 163-171.
Sachs, J., & Gao, L. (2000). Item and subscal-level factoring of Biggs’ learning process questionnaire (LPQ) in a mainland Chinese sample. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 405-418.
Sadler-Smith, E., & Tsang, F. (1998). A comparative study of approaches to studying in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68,, 81-93.
Sternber, R. J. (1988). Mental self-government: A theory of intellectual styles and their development. Human Development, 31, 197-224.
Sternberg,R.J.(1990). Thinking styles: Keys to understanding student performance. Phi Delta Kappan,71,366-371.
Sternberg,R.J.(1994a). Allowing for thinking styles. Educational Leadership,52(3),36-37.
Sternberg,R.J.(1994b). Thinking styles: theory and the assessment at the interface between intelligence and personality. In R.J.Sternberg & P. Ruzgis(eds.), Personality and Intelligence (pp. 169-187). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg,R.J.(1997a). Thinking Styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg,R.J.(1997b). The concept of intelligence and its role in lifelong learning and success. American Psychologist, 52(10),1030-1037.
Sternberg,R.J. (1998). Enhancing education for immigrants: The role of tacit Knowledge. Educational Policy,12(6),705-718.
Sternberg, R.J. (2000). Patterns of giftedness: A triarchic analysis. Roeper Review, 22(4), 231-236.
Sternberg, R.J., Ferrari, M., Chlinkenbeard, P.R., & Grigorenko, E.L. (1996). Indentification, instruction, and assessment of gifted children: A contruct validation of a triarchic model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 129-137.
Sternberg,R.J.,& Grigorenko (1992). Thinking styles and the gifted. Roper Review,16(2),122-130.
Sternberg,R.J.,& Grigorenko(1995). Styles of thinking in the school. European Journal for High Ability,6,201-219.
Sternberg,R.J.,& Grigorenko,E.L.(1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American Psychologist,52(7),700-712.
Sternberg,R.J.,& Grigorenko,E.L.(1999). Myth in psychology and education regarding the gene-environment debate. Teachers College Record, 100(3), 536-554.
Sternberg, R.J., & Spear-Swerling, L. (1996). Teaching for Thinking. Washington: APA press.
Sternberg, R.J., & Wagner, R.K. (1991). MSG thinking styles inventory, unpublished manuscript.
Sternberg,R.J.,Wagner,R.K.,Williams,W.M.,& Horvath, J.A.(1995). Testing common sense. American Psychologist, 50(11),912-927.
Saracho,O.N.(1991). Teaching expectations and cognitive style: Implications for students’ academic achievement. Early Child Development and Care,77,97-108.
Saracho,O.N.(1993). Sociocultural perspectives in the cognitive styles of young students and teachers. Early Child Development and Care,84,1-17.
Torrance, E.P., Reynolds, C.R., & Ball, O.E. (1977). Your style of learning and thinking, forms A and B: preliminary norms, abbreviated technical notes, scoring keys, and selected references. Gifted Child Quarterly,21, 563-573.
Watkins, D.A. (1996). Learning theories and approaches to research: A cross-culture perspective. In D.A. Watkins & J.B. Biggs(Eds), The Chinese learner: Culture psycology and contexual influences (pp. 3-24). Hong Kong: CERC and ACER.
Yates G.C.R. (1999). Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies: Understanding style differences in learning and behaviour / Thinking Styles, Educational Psychology, 19(1), 103-105.
Zhang,Li-Fang(1999). Further cross-cultural validation of the theory of mental self-government. The Journal of Psychology, 133(2),165-181.
Zhang,Li-Fang.,& Sachs,J.(1997). Assessing thinking styles in the theory of mental self-government: A Hong Kong validity study. Psychological Reports,81,915-928.
Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Thinking styles, abilities, and academic achievement among Hong Kong university students. Educational Research Journal,13, 41-62.
Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Are learning approach and thinking styles related? A study in two Chinese populations. Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary & Applied, 134(5), 469-490.
Zhang, L. F. (2000). Are thinking style and personality types related? Educational Psychology,20(3),271-283.