在研究者的生活科技教學歷程中，發現學生的個人特質可能對學習成就有影響，由文獻探討發現認知風格、思考風格對學生學習成就的影響有顯著差異，而其影響是否能轉移至重視實作的科技創造力表現上，有待本研究深入探討。因此本研究以認知風格、思考風格為自變項，產品創意表現為依變項，探討（一）不同認知風格對高中生產品創意表現的影響；（二）不同思考風格對高中生產品創意表現的影響。 本研究以台北市一所高中一年級十個班的學生為研究對象，其中以三個班進行預詴共119人，七個班為正式施測共252人。 認知風格採用團體藏圖測驗，區分場地獨立型與場地依賴型；思考風格則以思考風格量表，區分學生在功能（立法型、行政型、司法型）、形式（君主型、階層型、寡頭型、無政府型）與層次（全球型、地方型）三層陎下之思考類型；產品創意表現則以產品創意評量表為研究工具，其中包含材料、樣式、功能、機構；主要統計方法為單因子變異數分析與t考驗。 主要研究結果為：1.不同認知風格對高中學生產品創意表現的材料、樣式、功能、機構及總分的影響沒有顯著差異。2.不同思考風格對高中學生產品創意表現的材料、樣式、功能、機構及總分的影響沒有顯著差異。 最後，本研究依據研究發現與結論分別針對生活科技教學活動設計與後續研究，提出建議事項。
In the researcher’s teaching experiences centering on technology education, it was found that students’ personal characteristics would influence their learning achievements. According to literature review, those characteristics included cognitive styles and thinking styles. The effects of cognitive styles and thinking styles on product innovation performance were investigated in details in this research study. Hence, the purposes of this research were: (1) to investigate the impact of various cognitive styles on high school students’ product innovation performance; (2) to elaborate upon the effect of diverse thinking styles on students’ product innovation performance. There were ten classes of tenth graders from a Taipei municipal senior high school who were randomly chosen as the research subjects. Among them, 119 people from three of the classes took a pretest; 252 people from the other seven classes took the formal test. There were ten classes of tenth graders from a Taipei municipal senior high school who were randomly chosen as the research subjects. Among them, 119 people from three of the classes were required to take a pretest; 252 people from the other seven classes were prepared to take the formal test. This research study adopted a quantative approach to analyze how different cognitive styles and thinking styles affected product innovation by means of materials, features, functions, and mechanisms innovation. In this study, cognitive styles were interpreted by virtue of Group Embedded Figures Test to differentiate the Field Independent group from the Field Dependent group. Moreover, thinking styles were deciphered from the perspective of Thinking Style Inventory to make a distinction among three dimensions of thinking styles, including functions of thinking styles (legislative, executive, and judicial), forms of thinking styles (monarchic, hierarchic, oligarchic, and anarchic), and levels of thinking styles (global and local). Regarding the major statistical methods, they were both one-way ANOVA and t-test. The major research findings were: (1) a variety of cognitive styles exercised no significant influence upon high school students’ product innovation performance; (2) a wide range of thinking styles engendered no significant effects on high school students’ product innovation performance. Finally, the research findings and conclusion, derived from this study, demonstrated suggestions for the future study and the design of the living technology curriculum.