本研究旨在編製一國小教師教學思考風格量表，繼之將本量表與學生學習思考風格量表施測於一批參加適性學習夏令營的師生，並依據教師與學生個人的思考風格進行配對教學，以瞭解不同配對方式的學習成效有無不同。教師教學思考風格量表信度分析的結果，Cronbach’s α 為.83。因素分析結果量表35 題分成五個因素，分別命名為「程序型」8 題、「評析型」7 題、「自主型」7 題、「微觀型」6 題、「鉅觀型」7 題。驗證性因素分析結果，教師教學思考風格量表適配度考驗的GFI 均符合接受的最低標準值.90，故本模式與觀察資料的絕對適配度可被接受。之後，將教學思考風格量表及學習思考風格量表應用在國小六年級學童的適性學習夏令營中，以教師及學生個別風格類型將教師與學生配對，繼之進行教學。教材為台中教育大學測統所研究團隊自編之國小六年級國語與數學。在每一次單元教學後進行測驗，予以補救教學後再進行一次測驗。研究結果顯示，就教學後及補救教學後學生的成績而言，相異思考風格類型的師生配對模式優於相同類型的師生配對模式。

This study was first to develop the thinking style scale for the elementaryteachers. About the reliability, the internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) of theteaching-thinking style scale was .83. The results of confirmatory factor analysis ofteaching-thinking style scale indicated that the degree of adaptation GFI attained theminimum acceptable standards to the value of .90, so this model’s absolute fit couldbe accepted. Then, two scales (teacher teaching-thinking style scale and studentlearning- thinking style scale) were administered in the elementary school 6th gradestudents’ adaptive learning summer camp, and teachers and students were pairedaccording to their thinking styles. After teaching and remedial teaching, students weretested. Generally speaking, students’ Chinese and math test scores under differentthinking type pairing were better than those of the same type matching.