本研究依據R. J. Sternberg的「心智自我管理風格」理論，探討國小學生之思考風格與其低中高年段老師之思考風格與教學風格的可能關係。本研究以四所國小六年級434名學生與41名受試學生的班級導師為資料收集對象，再以卡方檢定、t檢定、變異數分析、相關分析進行資料分析與考驗。
本研究結果的主要發現有：（一）整體來說，在功能性思考風格上，男性教師較傾向於立法型，女性教師同時傾向立法型與行政型，男女性教師在司法型風格上皆相對的較弱；在型態性思考風格上，男女性教師皆較傾向於階層分明型，較不傾向於寡頭型；在層次性思考風格上，男女性教師皆較傾向於整體型；在範圍性思考風格上，男性教師的內在型與外在型無顯著差異，女性教師則較傾向於外在型；在傾向性思考風格上，女性教師不論在自由型或保守型的傾向強度均高於男性教師。（二）在功能性教學風格上，男女性教師在立法型、行政型與司法型風格的展現大致都兼顧，並無顯著的偏頗；在層次性教學風格上，男女性教師皆較著重於局部型風格；在傾向性教學風格上，男女性教師則皆較著重於自由型風格。（三）整體來說，在功能性思考風格上，男女學生皆是立法型風格較強，司法型風格較弱；在型態性思考風格上，男女學生皆較傾向於階層分明型，較不傾向於寡頭型；在層次性思考風格上，男學生的整體型與局部型間的風格無顯著差異，女學生則較傾向於局部型；在範圍性思考風格上，男女學生皆較傾向於外在型；在傾向性思考風格上，男女學生皆較傾向於自由型。（四）國小學生的思考風格與不同年段導師思考風格之間關聯性呈現低年段師生的思考風格多集中在正相關的比例上，但隨著年段往中年段與高年段的提升中，師生思考風格的關聯性便漸漸往零相關與些微負相關的方向移動；國小學生的思考風格與不同年段導師的教學風格並沒有太強烈的關聯性，但隨著就學年段的提升，國小學生的思考風格與不同年段導師教學風格之間關聯性逐漸往正、負相關的兩側移動。

The purpose study, based on “The Theory of Mental Self-Government” by R. J. Sternberg, is to examine the relations among teachers’ thinking styles, teachers’ teaching styles and students’ thinking styles. The Data was obtained from 434 students and 41 teachers of 4 elementary schools, and tested with Chi-Square Test, ANOVA and Correlation Analysis.
The findings of this study were: (1) On functions of thinking styles, male teachers tended to legislative style, while female teachers tended to both legislative and executive style. On forms of thinking styles, both male and female teachers tended to hierarchic style. On levels of thinking styles, both male and female teachers tended to global style. On scopes of thinking styles, no significant differences was found between internal style and external style for male teachers, while female teachers tended to external style. On leanings of thinking styles, female teachers showed a higher tendency than male teachers in both liberal style and conservative style. (2) On functions of teaching styles, both male and female teachers showed an average performance in legislative style, executive style, and judicial style. On levels of thinking style, both male and female teachers tended to local style. On leaning of thinking style, both male and female teachers tended to liberal style. (3) On functions of thinking style, both male and female students showed a higher tendency in legislative style. On forms of thinking styles, both male and female students tended to hierarchic style. On levels of thinking styles, there were no significant differences between global style and local styles for male students, while female students tended to local style. On forms of thinking style, both male and female students tended to external style. On leanings of thinking styles, male and female students tended to liberal styles. (4) The relations between students’ thinking styles and teachers’ thinking styles moved from light positive relations to zero relations or slightly negative relations as a function of grades. The relations between students’ thinking styles and teachers’ teaching styles centered on zero relations, and gradually diverge into slightly positive/negative relations as a function of grades.

一、中文部分
中國時報（2003年，12月16日）。盲目崇拜下的「英文檢定」亂象。
李金泉（2001）。非同步式網路輔助教學之研究--以技職校院工業安全課程為例。國立彰化師範大學工業教育學系博士論文，彰化。
周玉霜（2001）。國中教師與學生思考風格及其教學互動之關係。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文，高雄。
林麗惠（2000）。原住民與非原住民學童的認知風格、推理表現與問題解決表現之相關研究—以桃園縣平地國小為例。國立新竹師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，新竹。
洪蘭譯（民88）：不同凡想：教育界、產業的創造力開發。台北：遠流出版社。
翁秋玲（1999）。高中教師與學生思考格及其教學互動之關係。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文，高雄。
陳妍君（2005）。北市將檢測國小國語文學力建立能力檔案資料。中央社，民94年7月19日。
陳李綢（1992）。認知發展與輔導。台北：心理。
陳雅文（2000）。國小教師與學生思考風格及其教學互動之關係。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文，高雄。
彭文松（2005）。認知風格、學習風格與思考風格之區辨研究。國立新竹師範學院教育心理與諮商研究所碩士論文，新竹。
黃炯瑩（2004）。不同思考風格國小學童在e-learning社會科學習成效之探討。國立新竹師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，新竹。
莊鳳茹（2004）。國小教師的思考風格、實用智能及其相關研究。樹德科技大學幼兒保育學系碩士論文，高雄。
黃晴逸（2003）。國小學童思考風格量表之編製及其與創造力之相關研究。國立新竹師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，新竹。
裘友善、高淑芳、王振世、吳錦釵（2003a）。原住民學生認知風格與其學習表現之探討研究。教育部，未出版。
裘友善、高淑芳、王振世、吳錦釵（2003b）：思考風格量表修訂。國立新竹師範學院初等教育學系，未出版。
蔡明富譯（1999）。資優與成功智能。資優教育季刊，70期，1-6頁。（原著：Sternberg, R. J., 1997）
鄭英耀（2001）。教師與學生思考風格及其互動關係之研究（I）。行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫成果報告。
鄭英耀、翁秋玲、呂玲誼、吳佳玲、楊淑民（2004）。教師與學生思考風格及其互動關係之研究（Ⅱ）。行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫成果報告。
薛絢譯（1999）。活用你的思考風格。台北：天下遠見出版。
二、英文部分
Allport, G. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.
Conti, G. J. (1985). The relationship between teaching styles and adult learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 35 (4), 220-228.
Curry, Lynn (1983). An Organization of Learning Styles Theory and Constructs. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. 67th, Montreal, Quebec, April 11-15, 1983.
Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning styles. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing.
Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1992). Teaching elementary students through their individual learning styles-practical approaches for grades 3-6. Massachuestts :Simon & Schuster.
Gregorc, A. F. (1979). Learning/teaching styles：Potent forces behind them. Educational Leadership,36 (4),234-236.
Gregorc, A. F. (1984). Style as symptom: A phenomenological perspective. Theory Into Practice,23 (1),51-55.
Gregorc, A. F. (1985). Inside styles: Beyond the basics. Maynard, MA: Gabriel Systems.
Grigorenko, E. L. & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). Thinking styles. In D. Saklofske, & M. Zeidner, International handbook of personality and intelligence (p 205-229). New York: Plenum.
Grigorenko, E. L. & Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Styles of thinking, abilities, and academic performance. Exceptional children, 63 (3), 295-312
Henson, K. T. & Borthwick, P. (1984). Matching styles: A historical look. Theory Into Practice, 23, 1, 3-9, 31.
Jung, C. (1923). Psychological types. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Kagan, J. & Kogan, N. (1970). Individual variation in cognitive processes. In P. A. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology. Vol. I, 1273-1365. New York: Wiley.
Kagan, J. (1966). Reflection-impulsivity：The generality and dynamics of conceptual tempo. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71, 17-24.
Kogan, N. (1983). Stylistic variation in childhood and adolescence: Creativity, metaphor, and cognitive style. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 3 (630-706). New York
Murat Balkis & Gulnur Bayezid Isiker. (2005). The relationship between Thinking Styles And Personality Types. Palmerston North:.Vol.33, Iss. 3; pg. 283, 12 pgs
Myers, I. B & Myers, P. B. (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Riding, R, & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles: An overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11, 193-215.
Sternberg, R. J. (1994a). Allowing for thinking styles. Educational Leadership, Styles. (pp. vii-ix). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sternberg, R. J. (1994b). Thinking styles and the gifted. Roeper review v16 n2, 122-130.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking style. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American Psychologist, 52 (4), 700-721.
Vernon, P. (1973). Multivariate approaches to the study of cognitive styles. In J. R. Royce (Ed.), Contributions of multivariate analysis to psychological theory (139157). London: Academic Press.
Zhang, Li-fang & John Sachs（1997）Assessing thinking styles in the theory of mental self-government:a hong kong validity study. Psychological Reports, Vol. 81 , p915-928
Zhang, Li-fang (1999). Further cross-cultural validation of the theory of mental self-government. The journal of psychology, Vol. 133 , p165
Zhang, Li-fang (2001a). Do styles of thinking matter among Hong Kong secondary school students? Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 31 , p289-301
Zhang, Li-fang (2001b). Thinking styles and personality types revisited. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 31 , p883-894
Zhang, Li-fang (2001c). Thinking styles, self-esteem, and extracurricular experiences. International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 36 , p100-107
Zhang, Li-fang (2003). Are parent’s and children’s thinking styles related? Psychological Reports, Vol. 93 Issue 2, p617-630, 14p
Zhang, Li-fang (2004a). Thinking styles: University students’ preferred teaching styles and their conceptions of effective teachers. The Journal of Psychology, 2004, 138 (3), 233–252
Zhang, Li-fang (2004b). Do university students’ thinking styles matter in their preferred teaching approaches? Personality & Individual Differences, Vol. 37 Issue 8, p1551-1564, 14p