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.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:NSYSU/oai:NSYSU:etd-0815100-152933 |
| Date | 15 August 2000 |
| Creators | weng, judy |
| Contributors | none, none, none |
| Publisher | NSYSU |
| Source Sets | NSYSU Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Archive |
| Language | Cholon |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | http://etd.lib.nsysu.edu.tw/ETD-db/ETD-search/view_etd?URN=etd-0815100-152933 |
| Rights | unrestricted, Copyright information available at source archive |
Page generated in 0.0024 seconds