中文摘要

本研究旨在依據R.J.Sternberg理論，探討高中教師與學生思考風格及其在教學互動之關係，其主要目的有四：(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。
本研究對象，第一部份，為台灣縣市高中教師374人，第二部分，為高雄市高中教師30人，學生1217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」。資料之分析採用Pearson積差相關、t-test、one-way ANOVA、one-way MANOVA、典型相關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，男教師在立法、司法、全球、地方、自由與保守思考風格等六項之得分明顯比女教師高；就年齡而言，「45歲以上」組比「34歲以下」組傾向行政型，「35-44歲」組、「45歲以上」組比「34歲以下」組傾向地方型，「45歲以上」、「34歲以下」組傾向保守型；就年資而言，「7年以上」比「3年以下」組傾向保守型；父親教育程度，「國小以下」組、「中學」組之教師在行政型與保守型風格之得分明顯高於「大專以上」之教師且「國小以下」組在全球型得分比「大專以上」組為高；母親教育程度為「國小以下」組之教師在行政型得分明顯高於「大專以上」組，在「中學」組則在保守型得分高於「大專以上」組；任教科目方面，理科教師在地方型之得分明顯高於文科教師。
二、 在學生背景因素中，就性別而言，男生在立法、司法、全球型顯著比女生高，而女生則在行政型比男生高；父親教育程度，在「國中以下」之學生在行政型得分高於「大專以上」組之學生，「大專以上」組在司法型得分高於「國中以下」組，全球型的得分也高「國中以下」及「高中職」組；母親教育程度為「高中職」、「大專以上」組在司法型的得分高於「國中以下」組，「大專以上」組之全球型得分明顯高於「國中以下」及「高中職」組。
三、 教師背景因素與教師思考風格具有顯著的典型相關，背景因素的第一個典型因素可解釋教師思考風格的總變異量為4%。
四、 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37%。
五、 教師教學行為與學生思考風格的關係，在啟發教學上，學生之立法、地方與自由思考風格組間存有顯著差異。

六、 學生對教師教學行為之學習知覺滿意，組間存有差異。在記憶、創意、啟發、分析、合作討論與制定作業等六項教學行為指標中，高分組之學習知覺滿意皆明顯優於低分組，至於中分組與低分組間亦存有若干差異。
七、 學業成就與行政型思考風格有顯著相關，中分組之學業成就優於低分組。
八、各層面思考風格之教師與其學生之思考風格均未達顯著相關。
九、教師與學生思考風格的相似性不同，其學生學習知覺滿意與學業
成就兩項，組間差異不顯著。

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.
Two groups of subjects were arranged: with one including 374 high school teachers in Taiwan area, and the other including 30 teachers and their 1217 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)”. The data were analyzed by Pearson’s product-moment correlation, t-test, canonical correlation, one-way ANOVA, and one-way MANOVA.
The conclusion were drawn as follows:
1. On teachers’ background: (1) There were significant differences between male and female in legislative, global, liberal, local, conservative thinking styles. (2) There were significant differences between high, mid and low age groups in executive, local, conservative thinking styles. (3) There were significant differences between high, mid and low years groups in conservative thinking styles. (4) There were significant differences between high, mid and low father‘s education in executive, global, conservative thinking styles. (5) There were significant differences between high, mid and low mother’s education in executive, conservative thinking styles.
2. On students’ background: (1) There were significant differences between male and female in legislative, executive, judicial, global thinking styles. (2) Birth order have no significant differences with thinking styles. (3) There were significant differences between high, mid and low father‘s education in executive, judicial, global thinking styles. (4) There were significant differences between high, mid and low mother’s education in judicial, global of thinking styles.
3. Teachers’ background has canonical correlation with teachers’
thinking styles. The one canonical factor of Teachers’ background
efficacy explains 4% of all the teachers’ thinking styles.
4. Teachers’ thinking styles have canonical correlation with teaching
behavior. Three canonical factors of Teachers’ thinking styles
efficacy explains 37% of all the teacher behavior.
5. The relationship between teaching behavior and teachers’ thinking
styles has significant correlative with legislative, local, liberal of
teachers’ thinking on discovery teaching.
6. Teaching behavior has significant correlation with learning
perception satisfaction, but achievement does not.
7. Executive thinking styles have significant correlation with achievement.
8. Teachers’ thinking styles have no significant correlation with
students’ thinking styles.
9. Matching of teachers’ thinking styles and students’ thinking styles
has no significant correlation with learning perception
satisfaction and achievement.

頁次
第一章 緒論
第一節 研究動機與目的------------------------------------- 1
第二節 名詞釋義------------------------------------------- 6
第三節 研究限制------------------------------------------- 7

第二章 文獻探討
第一節 思考風格的概念------------------------------------- 9
第二節 影響思考風格的因素--------------------------------- 18
第三節 思考風格與教學行為之關係--------------------------- 22
第四節 教師與學生思考風格與其在教學歷程上的關係----------- 28

第三章 研究方法
第一節 研究架構------------------------------------------- 33
第二節 研究假設------------------------------------------- 35
第三節 研究對象------------------------------------------- 36
第四節 研究工具------------------------------------------- 40
第五節 實施程序------------------------------------------- 44
第六節 資料處理與分析------------------------------------- 45

第四章 結果與討論
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----- 47
第二節 教師個人變項在思考風格上的差異情形----------------- 50
第三節 學生個人變項在思考風格上的差異情形----------------- 61
第四節 背景變相教、師思考風格與教學行為之關係------------- 68
第五節 教師教學行為、學生思考風格、學習知覺滿意與學業成就 之關係--------------------------------------------- 74
第六節 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--------------------------------------------- 84

第五章 結論與建議
第一節 結論----------------------------------------------- 90
第二節 建議----------------------------------------------- 94

參考文獻
壹、中文部分---------------------------------------------- 99
貳、英文部份---------------------------------------------- 102




附錄
附錄一 思考風格量表之修訂------------------------------------ 108
附錄二 教師思考風格量表之修訂-------------------------------- 116
附錄三 教學行為自我評量表之修訂------------------------------ 122

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。
王瑞宏(民84)。成人基本教育教師教學型態與學生學習行為關係之研究。國立高雄師範大學成人教育研究所碩士論文。
吳裕益(民76)。認知能力與認知型態個別差異現象之探討。教育學刊，7，51-98。
吳宛如(民81)。老人教育之教師教學型態理論初探。成人教育，33(10)。
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。
林生傳(民83)。教育心理學。台北：五南。
林生傳(民73)。高中生「形地辨析型」與「形地混同型」之認知式態及其與教育、職業興趣成就的關係。教育學刊，5，81-112。
林生傳（民74）。國中學生學習式態之相關因素及其與學校教育態度、學業成就的關係。教育學刊，6，41-94。
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。
李玉枝(民82)。國中資優學生與普通學生學習風格及學校適應之比較研究。特殊教育研究學刊，9，249-276。
徐蓓蓓(民73)。教師個人特質、師生口語互動與學生對教師行為知覺、學生學業成就之關係研究。教育心理學報，16，99-114。
郭重吉(民76)。英國等國晚近對學生學習風格之研究。資優教育季刊，22，2-8。
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。
陳宗逸(民84)。家庭背景、教師行為、制握信念與國小學童創造思考相關之研究。國立屏東師範學院初等教育研究所碩士論文。
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劃成果報告。
張育成(民81)。國小語文科實施批判思考教學之實驗研究。台北師院學報，5，1-66。
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。
張景媛(民80)。大學生認知風格、動機與自我調整因素、後設認知與學業成績關係之研究。教育心理學報，24，145-161。
高翠霞、蔡崇建(民88)。學習風格與教學設計。教育資料研究，29，46-49。
鈕文英(民83)。學習障礙學生的學習風格與教學。教育研究雙月刊，37，67-74。
楊淑娟(民86)。國小教師場地獨立性、批判思考與對教學論題之道德推理的關係。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
楊坤原(民85)。認知風格與科學學習成就的關係。科學教育月刊，194，2-22。
葉玉珠(民89)。智能與批判思考。國立中山大學社會科學季刊，2(1)，1-28
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。
鄭英耀(民88)。中學教師建設性思考與動機、學習策略及其相關因素之研究學生行為關係之研究。國立中山大學共同科學報創刊號，137-165。
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。
蔡桂芬(民88)。國中資優生認知類型偏好之研究。特殊教育學報，13，433-454。
劉威德(民88)。教師教學信念系統之分析及其教學行為關係之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文。
顏銘志(民85)。國民小學教師教學信念、教師效能與教學行為之相關研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
簡紅珠(民87)。教師教學決定：內涵、思考歷程與影響因素—兼談如何改進教學決定技能。課程與教學季刊，43-56。
簡茂發、楊銀興(民77)。國小學生場獨立性、內外控信念與道德判斷的關係。中國測驗學會測驗年刊，35，85-102。
蘇順發、鄭勝耀、單文經（民88）。國小低年級教師教學風格、班及情境及學生參與行為關係之探討。國民教育學報，5，155-177。
羅一萍(民85)。父母的傳統性、現代性、管教方式與兒童的創造力相關之研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。



貳、英文部份
Allinson,C.W.,Hayes,J.,& Davis,A.A.(1994). Matching the cognituve styles of managent students and teachers: A preliminary study. Perceptual and Motor Skills,79,1256-1258.
Agor,W.H.(1991). How intuition can be used to enhance creativity in organization. The Journal of Creative Behavior,25(1),11-19.
Brattesani,K,A.,Weinstein,R.S.,& Marshall,H.H.(1984). Student perceptions of differential teacher treatment as moderators of teacher expectation effects. Journal of Educational Psychology,2,236-247.
Clapp,R.G.(1993). Stability cognitive style in adults and some implications,a longitudinal study of the kirton adaption-innovation inventory. Psychological Reports,73, 1235-1245.
Cornwell,J.M.& Manfredo,P.A.(1994). Kolb’s learning style theory revisited. Educational and Psychological Measurement,54(2),317-327.
Dunn,R.S.,& Dunn,K.J.(1979). Learning styles/teaching styles: Should they…Can they…Be matched? Educational Leadership,235-236.
Dai,D.Y.,& Hills,B.(1999). A validation study fo the thinking styles inventory: Implication for gifted education. Roper Review,21(4),302.
Dunn,R.,Dunn,K.,& Perrin,J.(1994). Teaching young children through their individual learning styles. N.H.：Allyn & Bacon.
Dunn,R.,Sklar,R.I.,Beaudry,J.S.,& Bruno,J.（1990）. Effects of matching and mismatching minority developmental college students’ hemispheric preferences on mathematics scores. Journal of Educational Research,83(5),283-288.
Fischher,B.B.,& Fischer,L.(1979). Styles in teaching and learning. Educational Leadership,245-251.
Gregorc,A.F.(1979). Learning/teaching styles: Potent Behind Them. Educational Leadership,235-236.
Good,T.L.(1987). Two decades of research on teacher expectations: Findings and future directions. Two decades of research on teacher expectations: Findings and future directions. Journal of Teacher Education,33,32-47
Grigorenko,E.L.,& Sternberg,R.J.(1997). Styles of thinking, abilities, and academic performance. Exceptional Children, 63(3), 295-312.
Huang,A.,& Subramaniam,N.(1992). Cognitive style as a factor in accounting students’ perceptions of career-choice factors. Psychological Reports,71,1275-1281.
Huang,J.,& Sisco,B.(1994). Thinking styles of Chinese and American adult students in higher education: A comparative study. Psychological Reports,74,475-480 。
Hayes,J.,& Allinson,C.W.（1998）. Human relations, cognitive style and the theory practice of individual and collective learning in organizations. Human Relations,51(7), 847-871.
Hayes,J.,& Allinson,C.W.(1993). Matching learning style and instructional strategy: An application of the person environment interaction paradigm. Perceptual and Motor Skill,76,63-79.
Hammer,R.E.,Hoffer,N.,& King,W.(1995). Relationships among gender,cognitive style,academic major,and performance on the plaget water-level task. Perceptual and Motor Skills,80,771-778.
Henson,K.,& Borthwick,P.(1984). Matching styles:A historical look. Theory into Practice,1,2-9.
Kleine,P.F.(1982). Teaching styles. In H.E.Mitzed(Ed.). Encyclopedia of Educational Research(5thed.),1927-1932. New York:McMillan & Free Press
Kim,J.,& Michael,W.B.(1995). The relationship of creativity measures to school achievement and to preferred learning and thinking style in a sample of Korean high school students. Educational and Psychological Measurement,55(1), 60-71.
Jacobso,C.M.(1993). Cognitive styles of creativity: Relations of scores on the Kirion adaption-innovation inventory and the MYERS-BRIGGS type indicator among, Managers in USA. Psychological Reports,72,1131-1138.
Lenehan,M.C.,Dunn,R.,Ingham,J.,Signer,B.,& Murray, J.B.(1991). Effects of learning-style intervention on college students’ achievement, anxiety, anger, and curiosity. Journal of College Student Development,35,461-466.
McKenna,F.P.(1984). Measures of field dependence: Cognitive style or cognitive ability？ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,47(3),593-603.
McDonald,E.R.(1984). The relationship of student and faculty field dependence/independence congruence to student academic achievement. Educational and Psychological Measurement,44,725-731.
Nelson,B.,Griggs,S.A.,Primavera,L.,Fitzpatrick,M., Bacilious,Z.,& Miller,R.(1993). Effects of Learning Style intervention on college student’s retention and achievement. Journal of College Student Development,34, 364-369.
Oettingen,G.,& Seligman,M.(1990). Pessimism and behavioural signs of depression in East versus West Berlin. European Journal of Social Psychology,20,207-220.
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.
Wang,M.C.,Haertel,G.D.,& Walberg,H.（1994）. What helps students learn? Educational Leadership,74-79.
Riding,R.,& Mathias,D.(1991). Cognitive styles and preferred learning mode,reading attainment and cognitive ability in 11-year-old children. Educational Psychology,383-393.
Riding,R.,& Sadler-Smith,E.(1992).Type of instructional material,cognitive style and learning performance. Educational Psychology,18(3),323-339.
Riding,R.,& Caine,T.(1993). Cognitive style and GCSE performance in mathematics,Eenglish language and French. Educational Psychology,13(1),59-67.
Riding,R.,& Pearson,F.(1994). Cognitive Style and intelligence. Educational Psychology,14(4),413-425.
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 assessment at the interface between intelligence and personality. In R.J.Sternberg & Ruzgis,P.(eds.), Personality and Intelligence. 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.,& 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.,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.
Saracho,O.N.,& Spodek,B.(1981). Teachers’ cognitive styles and their educational implications. Educational Forum,45,153-159.
Saracho,O.N.,& Dayton,C.M.(1980). Relationship of teachers’ cognitive styles to pupils’ academic achievement gains. Journal of Educational Psychology,72(4),544-549.
Sadler-Smith,E.,& Badger,B.(1998). Cognitive style, learning and innovation. Technology Analysis Strategic Management,10(2),247-263.
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.