本研究旨在探討學生個人特質可能影響學習成就，文獻探討發現個人差異對學習成就有顯著差異，其影響是否能影響科技實作的歷程與表現，有待本研究探討。本量化研究，以國中生的認知風格為自變項，產品創意歷程與創意表現為依變項，研究對象為臺北市某市立國民中學257位學生，研究工具為劉信雄修編自Keefe的「認知風格量表」、「產品創意歷程學習單」與「產品創意量表」。「認知風格量表」包括「連續處理技能」、「區別技能」、「同時處理技能」、「分類技能」、「分析技能」、「空間技能」、「記憶技能」七個量表；產品創意歷程「製作規畫」、「設計分析」、「製作組裝」、「功能測試」四份學習單；產品創意評量「整體評分」、「樣式」、「材料」、「結構」四份量表。所得資料以描述統計、皮爾森績差相關、獨立樣本t檢定及多元迴歸分析等統計方法來進行資料處理，主要發現如下：
一、學生的「認知風格」表現大致良好，以「連續處理技能」表現最佳，但「分類技能」表現最不理想；「產品創意歷程」表現大致良好，以「設計分析」表現最佳，但「作品規畫」表現最不理想；「創意表現」大致良好，「樣式」表現最佳，但「結構」表現最不理想。
二、認知風格的「空間技能」高低分組在產品創意歷程「作品規劃」的差異達顯著水準；「區別技能」高低分組在創意表現「整體評分」、「樣式」、「結構」的差異達顯著水準，「空間技能」高低分組在創意表現「結構」的差異達顯著水準。
三、產品創意歷程的「作品規畫」、「設計分析」及「製作組裝」的高低分組在「整體評分」、「材料」、「樣式」及「結構」的差異達顯著水準；「功能測試」在「整體評分」、「材料」及「樣式」的差異達顯著水準。
四、認知風格的「分類技能」、「空間技能」及「記憶技能」能有效預測產品創意歷程的「作品規畫」；認知風格的「分類技能」能有效預測創意表現的「功能測試」得分。
五、產品創意歷程的「作品規畫」和「設計分析」能有效預測創意表現 的「整體評分」、「樣式」及「結構」。
最後，研究者根據本研究結果加以討論，針對生活科技教學活動提出具體建議，作為未來研究參考。

The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of cognitive styles on junior high school students’ creative product process and creative performance. According to literature review that individual differences, cognitive styles would affect one’s learning achievement. The effects of cognitive styles on creative product process and creative performance were investigated in details in this study.
The subjects of this study were 257 sevevn-grade students from a municipal junior high school in Taipei. These subjects were assessed with the “cognitive styles scale”, “creative product profile” and “creative product sclale”. The t-test, Pearson correlation, multiple regression analysis were to analyze the data and the results were show as below:
1.Students’ cognitive styles performance, creative product process, creative performance were good generally, especially “sequential processing”, “design and analyze”, and “style”.
2.The study showed that “spatial skill” difference was found on “planning” and “implementation”; “discrimination skill” difference was found on “overall rate”, “style” and “structure”.
3.The study showed that “plan”, “design and analyse”, and “production” difference were found on “overall rate”, “material”, “style”, and “structure”; “production” difference were found on “overall rate”, “material”, and “style”.
4. The study showed that “categorization skill”, “spatial skill”, and “memory skill” can predict from “plan”; “spatial skill” can predict from “implementaion”.
5. The study showed that “plan” and “design and analyse” could predict from “overall”, “style”, and “structure”.
Implications of the finding for living technology curriculum and future research were also discussed.

中文部分：
王保堤（2005）。設計導向課程對國中學生科技創造力影響之研究。國立臺灣師範大學工業科技教育學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
朱益賢（2006）。從科技素養到科技創造力。生活科技教育月刊，39（8），1-2。
行政院（2010）。行政院100年度施政方針。2010年8月10日，取自http://www.ey.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=52755&ctNode=1028&mp=1
行政院國家科學委員會（2009）。國家科學技術發展計畫。2010年8月11日，取自http://web1.nsc.gov.tw/ct.aspx?xItem=8703&CtNode=330&mp=1
何宜軒（2006）。透過網路化創造性問題解決教學以培養國中學生科技創造力之研究。國立臺灣師範大學工業科技教育學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
吳志誠（1992）。產品與工業設計(Part 1)。臺北：北星。
呂紹川（2008）。國中生科技創意歷程與產品創意之關係研究。國立臺灣師範大學工業科技教育學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
李乙明、李淑貞（譯）（2005）。R. J. Sternberg著。創造力I‧理論。臺 北：五南。
李大偉、張玉山（2000）。科技創造力的意涵與教學(上)。生活科技教育月刊，33（9），9-16。
李大偉、張玉山、林雅玲、何宜軒、劉罄儀（2006）。不同範例展示及實作經驗對國中生技術創造力的影響。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告（NSC94-2511-S-003-019）。臺北：國立臺灣師範大學工業科技教育學系(所)。
李堅萍（2006）。培育科技創造力應重視實作技能的教學與自我效能的激發。生活科技教育月刊，39（8），21-28。
林生傳（1984）。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。
林建佑（2008）。認知風格對模擬學習成效及學習歷程影響之研究。國立臺灣師範大學工業科技教育學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
林建志（2009）。TRIZ設計教學對高中學生產品創新影響之研究。國立臺灣師範大學工業科技教育學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
林紋宏（2007）。自我調整學習與認知風格對國小自然與生活科技學習影響之研究。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄。
邱皓政、丁興祥、林耀南、陳育瑜、林碧芳、王詩婷、賴靜儀、柯怡安、陳佳筠、何潤娥（譯）（2008）。M. A. Runco著。創造力：當代理論與議題。臺北：心理。
邱皓政、葉玉珠、蔡明宏（1998，12月）。技術創造力：概念與定義。論文發表於國立中山大學主辦之「技術創造力」研討會，高雄。
郭重吉（1987）。英美等國晚近對學生學習風格之研究。資優教育季刊，22，2-8。
張玉山（2003）。虛擬團隊之創造力研究─以師院勞作課程為例。國立臺灣師範大學工業科技教育學系博士論文，未出版，臺北。
張玉山、李大偉、游光昭、林雅玲（2009）。不同範例展示及實作經驗對國中生科技創造力的影響。教育科學研究期刊，54（4），1-27。
張玉成（1995）。思考技巧與教學。臺北：心理。
張春興（1996）。教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐。臺北：東華。
教育部（2002）。創造力教育白皮書。2010年8月12日，取自 http://www.edu.tw/files/download/CONSULTANT/%E6%95%99%E 8%82%B2%E9%83%A8%E5%89%B5%E9%80%A0%E5%8A%9B %E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E7%99%BD%E7%9A%AE%E6%9B%B8.pdf
教育部（2008a）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要自然與生活科技學習領。2010年8月11日，取自http://www.edu.tw/eje/content.aspx?site_ content_sn=15326
教育部（2008b）。普通高級中學課程綱要總綱。2010年8月29日，取自http://physical.tcfsh.tc.edu.tw/physical/data/970121TOTAL.pdf
教育部（2010）。教育部中程施政計畫。2010年8月11日，取自 http://www.edu.tw/secretary/content.aspx?site_content_sn=903
莊孟蓉（2009）。認知風格與思考風格對高中學生產品創意表現影響之研究。國 立臺灣師範大學工業科技教育學系碩士論文，未出版， 臺北。
陳李綢（1999）。認知發展與輔導（第二版）。臺北：心理。
陳誼娉（2008）。專題導向學習運用在國中生活科技創造力之研究。國立臺灣師範大學工業科技教育學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
陳龍安（2006）。創造思考教學的理論與實際。臺北：心理。
彭聃齡、張必隱（2000）。認知心理學。臺北：東華。
曾若蘭（2008）。國中生生活科技創造力表現相關因素分析研究。國立臺灣師範大學工業科技教育學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
葉玉珠（2004）。「科技創造力測驗」的發展與常模的建立。中國測驗學會測驗學刊，51（2），126-162。
葉玉珠（2000）。「創造力發展的生態系統模式」及其應用於科技與資訊領域之內涵分析。教育心理學報，32（1），95-122。
臺北市立景美國中（2010）。臺北市立景美國中。2010年9月4日，取自http://www.cmjh.tp.edu.tw/releaseRedirect.do?unitID =183&pageID=3042
劉信雄（1992）。國小學生認知風格、學習策略、自我效能與學業成就關係之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，臺北。
魏炎順（2001）。設計與製作創造思考問題解決教學模式探討。生活科技教育，34（6），8-19。
魏炎順（2005）。解構與科技創造力的實現。生活科技教育月刊，38（5）， 2-9。
羅芝芸（1999）。兒童認知風格、情緒智力與問題解決能力之相關研究。國立臺灣高雄師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄。

英文部分：
Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (1996). The cognitive style index: A measure of intuition analysis for organizational research. Journal of Management Studies, 33(1), 119-135.
Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997-1013
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Besemer, S. P. (1998). Creative product analysis matrix: Testing the model structure and a comparison among products─Three novel chair. Creativity Research Journal, 11(4), 333-346.
Besemer, S. P., & O’ Quin, K. (1999). Confirming the three-factor creative product analysis matrix model in an Americal Sample. Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), 287-296.
Besemer, S. P., & Treflhger, D. J. (1981). Analysis of creativeproducts: Review and synthesis. Journal of Creative Behavior, 15, 158-178.
Chen, D. H. (2006). Understanding the benefits and detriments of conflict on team creativity process. Creativity and Innovation Mangement, 15(1), 105-116.
Chiu, M., & Whitebread, D. (2011). Taiwanese teachers’ implementation of a new ‘constructivist mathematics curriculum’: How cognitive and affective issues are addressed. International Journal of Educational Development, 31(2), 196-206
Chung, J., Evenson, S., & Pangaro, P. (2009). A Model of The Creative Proces. Retrieved September 1, 2010, from http://www.dubberly.com/concept-maps/creative-process.html
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 769-786.
Cox, G. (2005) Cox review of creativity in business: building on the UK’s strengths. Retrieved April 7, 2011, from http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/ independent_reviews/cox_review/coxreview_index.cfm
Cropley, A. J. (2000). Defining and measuring creativity: Are creativity tests worth using? Roeper Review, 23(2),72-79.
Culley, S. J. (2002) The innovation debate. Bath: University of Bath.
Curry, L. (1983). An organization of learning styles theory and constructs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 235185).
Doppelt, Y. (2009). Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 19, 55-65.
Dorta, T., Pérez, E., & Lesage, A. (2008). The ideation gap: hybrid tools, design flow and practice. Design Studies, 29(2), 121-141.
Dubberly Design Office (2010). About. Retrieved September 1, 2010, from http://www.dubberly.com/about
Duran, R., & Szymanski, M. (1993). Construction of learning and interaction of language minority children in cooperative learning. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 365106)
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Furnham, A., Batey M., Booth T. W., Patel V., & Lozinskaya, D. (2011).
Individual difference predictors of creativity in art and science students.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(2), 114-121.
Goldstein, K. M., & Blackman, S. ( 1978). Cognitive style. New York, NY: Wiely.
Graf, S., Liu, T. C., Chen, N. S., & Yang, S. J. H. (2009). Learning styles and cognitive traits --- Their relationship and its benefits in web-based educational systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1280-1289
Hayes, J., & Allinson, C. W. (1994). Cognitive style and its relevance for management practice. British Journal of Management, 5, 53-71.
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2003). Complex or unitary? A critique and empirical re-assessment of the Allinson-Hayes Style Index. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 243-268.
Holt, K. (1983). Product Innovation Management (2nd ed). London: Butterworths.
International Institute of Management Development (2010). Factors & Criteria. Retrieved September 1, 2010, from http://www.imd.org/ research/publications/wcy/Factors_and_criteria.cfm
Isaksen, S. G., Dorval, K. B., Noller, R. B., & Firestien, R. L. (1993). The dynamic nature of creative problem solving. Paper presented at Discovering creativity: Proceeding of the 1992 International Creativity and Innovation Networking Conference, Greensboro, NC.
Kaartinen, S., & Kumpulainen, K. (2002). Collaborative inquiry and the construction of explanation in the learning of science. Learning and Instruction, 12(2), 189-212.
Keefe, J. W. (1979). Learning style: An overview. In J. W. Keefe (Ed.), Student learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp. 1-17). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Keefe, J. W. (1987). Learning style : theory and practice. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Keefe, J. W., & Ferrell, B. G. (1990). Developing a defensible learning style paradigm. Educational Leadership, 48(2), 57-61.
Kelley, T. R. (2008). Cognitive processes of students participating in engineering-focused design instruction. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 50-64.
Kozhevnikov, M. (2007). Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: Toward and integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin, 133(3), 464-481.
Kuchinskas, G. (1979). Whose cognitive style makes the difference?. Educational Leadership, 36, 269-271.
Kuhlen, R. (1968). Developmental changes in motivation during the adult years. In B. L. Neugarten (Ed.), Middle age and aging (pp. 115-136). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lewis, T. (2008). Creativity in technology education: providing children with glimpses of their inventive potential. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19, 255-268.
Leonard, N. H., Scholl, R. W., & Kowalski, K. B. (1999). Information processing style and decision making. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 20, 407-420.
Marks, D. F. (1973). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 64, 17-24.
Mayer, E. R. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R. J. Sternberg(Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 449-460). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Martinsen, O., & Kaufmann, G. (1991). Effect of imagery, strategy and individual differences in solving insight problems. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 35, 69-76.
Messick, S. (1976). Individuality in learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
MG Taylor Corporation (2010). Retrieved August 20, 2010, from http://www.mgtaylor.com
MG Taylor Corporation (1996). Anatomy of the creative process. Retrieved August 20, 2010, from http://www.mgtaylor.com/mgtaylor/jotm/fall96/7stanat.htm
Michael, K. Y. (2001). A comparison of students’ product creativity using a computer simulation activity versus a hands-on activity in technology education. Retrieved September 3, 2010, from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu /ejournals/JTE/v13n1/michael.html
Michell, T. J. F., Chen, S. Y., & Macredie, R. D. (2005). Cognitive styles and adaptive web-based learning. Psychology of Education Review, 29(1), 34-42.
Miller, A. (1991). Personality types, learning styles and educational goals. Educational Psychology, 11, 217-238.
Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. New York: University Press.
Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Osborn, A. (1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving. New York, New York: Charles Scribner.
Pérez-Fabello, M. J., & Campos, A. (2007). The influence of imaging capacity on visual art skills. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2, 128-135.
Peterson, E. R., Deary, I. J., &Austin, E. J. (2003). The reliability of Riding’s cognitive style analysis test. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 881-891.
Reilly, R. C. (2008). Is expertise a necessary precondition for creativity?
A case of four novice learning group facilitators. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3, 59-76.
Rezaei, A. R., & Katz, L. (2004). Evaluation of the reliability and validity cognitive of the cognitive style analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1317-1327.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305-310.
Riding, R. (1997). On the nature of cognitive style. Educational Psychology, 17(1/2), 29-49.
Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles --- an overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11(3/4), 193-217.
Riding, R., & Pearson, F. (1994). The relationship between cognitive style and intelligence. Educational Psychology, 14, 413-425.
Puccio, G. J., Treffinger, D. J., & Talbot, R. J. (1995). Exploratory examination of relationships between creativity styles and creative products. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 25-40
Runco, M. A., Plucker, A. P., & Lim, W. (2000/2001). Development and psychometric integrity of a measure of ideational behavior. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3/4), 393-400
Sadler-Smith, E., & Riding, R (1997). Cognitive style and instructional preferences. Instructional Science, 27, 355-371.
Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Adler, N., Aharon-Peretz, J., Perry, D., & Mayseless, N. (2011). The origins of originality: The neural bases of creative thinking and originality. Neuropsychologia, 49(2), 178-185.
Smith, S. M., Gerkens, D. R., Shah, J. J., & Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2003, June). Empirical studies of creative cognition in idea generation. Paper presented at the Kellogg Team and Group Research Center’s Conference on Creativity and Innovation in Organizations, Chicago, IL.
Sternbeg, R. J., O'Hara, L. A., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). Creativity as Investment. California Management Review, 40(1), 8-21.
Tennant, M. (1988). Psychology and adult learning. London: Routledge.
Wallas, G. (1926). The arts of thought. New York, NY: Harcour Brace and Worl.
Ward, T. B. (2007). Creative cognition as a window on creativity. Methods, 42(1), 28-37.
Ward, T. B., Patterson, M. J., & Sifonis, C. M. (2004). The role of specificity and abstraction in creative idea generation. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 1-9
Webster, A., Campbell, C., & Jane, B. (2006). Enhancing the creative process for learning in primary technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16, 221-235.
Witkin, H. A. (1967). A cognitive style approach to cross cultural research. International Journal of Psychology, 2, 233-250.
Witkin, H. A., & Moore, C. A. (1974). Cognitive style and the teaching learning process. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education al Research Association. Princeton, NJ.
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Oltman, P. K., Goodenough, D. R., Friedman, F., Owen D. R., & Raskin, E. (1977). Role of the field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles in academic evolution: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(3), 197-211.
Yeh, Y. C., & Wu, J. J. (2006). The cognitive processes of pupils’ technological creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(2), 213-227.
Yukari, N., Toshiharu, T., & Futoshi, M. (2009). Concept blending and dissimilarity: factors for creative concept generation process. Design Studies, 30(6), 648-675.