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.