臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

設計教育的宗旨之一是在教導設計者利用先前的知識與經驗來解決設計中的問題，讓設計者能更有效率地來從事設計。設計方法即是探討如何用明箱化的、簡要可行的設計學習法則來提升設計能力。
本研究著眼於一般設計師在設計流程中最易產生瓶頸之階段〝構想之產生與轉換〞，針對其創造力需求之本質，探討運用水平思考中之視覺類比法 (visual analogy) 時，不同的參考訊息類型 (與設計任務目標相關或不相關之圖像)對設計創造力之影響。研究中以實驗法來進行設計任務 (design task) 中之構想展開，並採用回溯訪談 (retrospective interview) 解析設計師之設計思考 (design thinking) 與構想草圖 (sketches) 之互動關係，以了解在運用視覺類比法時，不同參考圖像訊息對設計師創造力之激發的影響，並進一步比較此影響在專家與生手間之差異。
研究結果顯示，應用視覺類比法進行設計任務之構想展開時，不同參考圖像訊息對創造力之流暢性與獨創性皆無顯著性影響。此外，整體來看，專家與生手在流暢性的表現並無顯著性差異；但在獨創性方面，專家表現顯著地優於生手。雖然，獨創性得分之ANOVA顯示專家及生手在參考與設計任務相關或不相關圖像訊息以應用視覺類比法於構想展開時並無交互作用，但根據回溯訪談發現，設計經驗的多寡對解決問題與設計流程掌控非常重要。對專家而言，在應用視覺類比法時參考設計任務相關圖像所可能造成之創意阻礙可用其過去之豐富設計經驗來克服；不過，若以設計任務不相關圖像為參考訊息，因其轉換及可再詮釋性高，不需多做嘗試即可激發創造力發展出新造型。相對地，生手設計師在參考設計任務相關之現有產品圖像進行視覺類比法應用時，使其在初接觸設計案時即易掌握其設計物之基本形態，但若參考與設計案不相關之圖片，則可使設計者產生較多元之設計構想，因此在設計教學上若能引導學生根據其設計生涯之不同階段特質參考不同的圖像訊息進行創造思考，更能充分發揮創造力。

One of the purposes of design education is to instruct designers to utilize their previous knowledge and experiences to solve design problems efficiently. The aim of applying design methods to solve design problems is to improve designers’ abilities by adopting the explicit design learning methods.
This research focuses on the creative nature of the design stage of idea generation and transformation at which is the stage that designers may feel blocked most frequently, and aims at exploring the influences of different visual references on design creativity while applying the design method of visual analogy. This study adopts a design task experiment to observe designers’ concept development activities and a retrospective interview to dissect the interactions between sketches and designers’ thinking. Furthermore, the effects that the graphic references on experts’ and novices’ creativities while they are applying visual analogy to design are compared.
The research results indicate that there is no significant effect of the types of graphic references on the fluency and the originality of design creativity while applying visual analogy. In addition, the performances of experts and novices are not significantly different on concept fluency. But, the experts perform better on concept originality than the novices. The ANOVA result shows that, while applying visual analogy to concept development, there is no interaction of experts/novices and graphic references on originality. However, it is found that design experiences are a critical factor in controlling the design processes and solving design problems. It is suggested that teaching design students to use different image information based on their design experiences as the cues for creative thinking may increase the effectiveness of design education.

摘 要I
謝 誌III
目 錄IV
圖目錄VIII
表目錄IX
第一章 緒論1
1-1 研究背景動機1
1-2 研究目標與重要性2
1-3 研究問題與方法2
1-4 研究架構4
1-5研究名詞釋義5
1-6 研究範圍與限制6
第二章 文獻探討8
2-1 設計行為8
2-1-1 構想草圖在設計所扮演之角色8
2-1-2專家與生手在解決問題的差異9
2-2 創造力9
2-2-1創造性思考之本質12
2-2-2創造性思考之過程13
2-2-3 小結13
2-3 視覺思考14
2-4 視覺類比15
2-5 語碼分析與語碼基模16
2-5-1 語碼分析法及其分析資料取得16
2-5-2 設計行為中之語碼基模18
第三章 研究方法20
3-1 實驗設計之本質與目的21
3-2 先期實驗21
3-2-1 實驗任務與視覺類比圖片選擇21
3-2-2 受測樣本選取22
3-2-3 實驗步驟22
3-2-4 先期實驗研究結果分析23
3-2-4-1 設計任務整體時間方面23
3-2-4-2 專家與生手設計之燈具創意評分之比較23
3-2-4-3 不同圖像訊息象對產品設計行為之影響24
3-2-4-4受測者之回溯訪談資料分析25
3-3正式實驗25
3-3-1 抽樣方法26
3-3-2 實驗之設計任務26
3-3-3 視覺類比之參考圖片27
3-3-4 受測者與實驗分組28
3-3-5 實驗環境29
3-3-6 實驗步驟及流程29
3-4 回溯訪談30
3-5 資料收集與分析31
第四章 研究結果與分析33
4-1 受測者基本資料33
4-2 個別行為模式分析35
4-2-1 不同圖像參考訊息之設計行為現象35
4-2-1 專家之設計行為35
4-2-2 生手之設計行為37
4-3 設計行為模式比較44
4-4 設計過程中使用使用視覺類比法之分析47
4-5 視覺類比法之使用參考圖像分析48
4-6 過去經驗對設計過程之影響52
4-7 設計方案之自我評估分析53
4-8 創造力展現分析54
4-8-1 創意流暢性分析54
4-8-2 創意獨創性分析56
第五章 結論與建議59
5-1 研究發現59
5-1-1 圖像參考訊息對設計創造力之影響69
5-1-2 圖像參考訊息對設計行為之影響60
5-1-3 專家與生手之創造力60
5-1-4 專家與生手的設計行為60
5-2 結果討論62
5-3 建議與未來研究方向63
參考文獻65
中文部份65
英文部份66
附錄
附錄1 設計任務相關參考圖片70
附錄2 與設計任務不相關圖片資料來源72
附錄3 設計任務不相關參考圖片73
附錄4 受測者基本能力評估問卷75
附錄5 事後回溯問卷76
附錄6 語碼分析表77

一、中文部份
1.王昭仁譯，劉育東審定，設計思考，建築情報，台北，民88。
2.王培儼，原案圖像資料記錄與分析之研究以案例是設計為例，國立成功大學建築研究所碩士論文，民88。
3.王蕙雯，設計過程中觀看的認知活動，國立交通大學應用藝術研究所碩士論文，民85。
4.邱憲宏，以原案分析探討電腦對設計知識操作的影響，私立中華大學碩士論文，民89。
5.唐玄輝，設計思考中口語整合編碼系統初探，國立交通大學應用藝術研究所碩士論文，民85。
6.張建成譯，設計方法，六和出版社，台北，民83。
7.張晉財，功能類比於訪生構想擷取，國立成功大學工業設計設計研究所碩士論文，民89。
8.陳文印，設計解讀─工業設計專業知能之探索，亞太圖書出版社，台北，民86。
9.陳家富，發現問題在建築設計創造力中的角色，國立交通大學應用藝術研究所碩士論文，民86。
10.劉英茂，托浪斯創造性思考測驗，中國行為科學社，台北，民63。
11.鄭乃文，影音回溯資料初探─以設計思考為研究面象，國立交通大學應用藝術研究所碩士論文，民86。
12.賴弘綱，設計心智行為之資料記錄系統試探，國立成功大學建築研究所碩士論文，民84。
二、英文部份
1.Akin, Ö., 1979, Model of architecture knowledge: An information processing model of design, PH. D. dissertation, Carnegie-Mellon University.
2.Akin, Ö., 1984, An exploration of the design process. In Developments in design methodology, ed. Cross N, 189-208. N.Y., John Wiley.
3.Akin, Ö., 1993, “Architects'' reasoning with structure and functions”, In Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 20, 270-294.
4.Akin, Ö., & Lin, C., 1995, “Design protocol data and novel design decisions”, Design Studies, Vol.16, No.2, 211-236.
5.Anderson, J. B., 1990, Cognitive psychology and its implications, N.Y., 3rd ed. Freeman and company.
6.Anderson, J. R., 1993, Rules of the Mind, Hove Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.Asimow, M., 1962, Introduction to Design, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.
8.Casakin, H. & Goldschmidt, G., 1999, “Expertise and the use of visual analogy: implications for design education”, Design Studies, Vol.20, No.2, 153-175.
9.Cross, A. C., 1995, “Observations of teamwork and social processes in design” Design Studies, Vol.16, No.2, 143-170.
10.Cross, N. H. Christiaans & Dorst, K., 1996, Introduction: the Delft Protocols Workshop. In Analysing design activity, Ed, N, Cross et al. John Wiley & Sons, London.
11.Csilkszentmihalyi, M., 1986, “Motivation and creativity: Toward a synthesis of structural and energistic approaches to cognition”, New Ideas in Psychology, Vol.6, 159-175.
12.Csilkszentmihalyi, M., 1988, “Society, culture, and person: a systems view of creativity”, The nature of creativity, Cambridge University Press.
13.Csilkszentmihalyi, M., 1988, “Solving a problem is not finding a new one: a reply to Simon”, New Ideas in Psychology, Vol.6, 183-186.
14.David B. G., 1970, Webster''s new world dictionary, N.Y., Warner Books.
15.Davies, S., 1995, “Effects of concurrent verbalization on design problem solving”, Design Studies, Vol.16, No.1, 102-116.
16.Dorst, K. & Dijkhuis, J., 1995, “Comparing paradigms for describing design activity”, Design Studies, Vol.16, No.1, 261-274.
17.Eastman, C. M., 1970, “On the analysis of intuitive design processes”, In Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and Planning, Cambridge, M.A., MIT Press, 21-37.
18.Einstein, A. & Infeld, L., 1938, The evolution of physics, N.Y., Simon and Schuster Press.
19.Ericsson, K. A. & Simon, H. A., 1993, Protocol Analysis─Verbal Report as Data, revised ed., Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.
20.Getzels, J W., 1964, “Creative thinking, problem-solving, and instruction”, In Hilgard, E. R. (ed) Theories of learning instruction University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 240-267.
21.Glaser, R., 1989, Expertise and learning; how do we think about instructional processes now that we have discovery knowledge structures? In Klahr D and Kotovsky eds., Complex information processing: the impact of Herbert A Simon Erlbaum, N.J., Hillsdale, 269-282.
22.Goldschmodt, G.,1991, “The dialectics of sketching”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.4, No.2, 123-143.
23.Goldschmidt, G., 1995, “The designer as a team of one”, Design Studies, Vol.16, No.2, 189-209.
24.Hayes, J. R., 1989, The complete problem solver 2d ed., N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.Jones, J. C., 1970, Design Method, N.Y., John Wiley and Sons.
26.Joseph, S., 1996, “Design systems and paradigms”, Design Studies, Vol.17, No.3, 227-239.
27.Kince, Eli, 1982, Visual Puns in Design, N.Y., Watson-Cuptill Publications.
28.Lloyd, P. & Scott, P., 1994, “Discovering the Design Problem”, Design Studies, Vol.15, No.2, 125-140.
29.Lloyd, P. & P. Scott., 1995, “Difference in similarity: interpreting the architectural design process”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol.22, 383-406.
30.Lloyd, P., 1995, “Can concurrent verbalization reveal design cognition?”, Design Studies, Vol.16, No.2, 237-259.
31.Mednick, M. T. & Andrews, F.M., 1967, “Creative thinking and level of intelligence”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.1, 428.
32.Newell, A., Shaw, J.C. & Simon, H. A., 1962, The process of creative thinking, In H. Gruber, Terrell, & M. Wertheimer (eds.), Contemporary approaches to creative thinking, N.Y. Atherton Press.
33.Newell, A and Simon, H. A., 1972, A Human problem- solving, Prentice Hall, N.J., Englewood Cliffs.
34.Nisbett, R. E. & T. D. Wilson., 1977, “Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental process”, Psychological Review, Vol.84, No.3, 231-259.
35.Pierce, K.A.. & Gholson, B., 1994, “Surface similarity and relational similarity in the development of analogical problem- solving: isomorphic and nonisomorphic transfer”, Developmental Psychology, Vol.14 No.3, 724-737.
36.Reswick, J. A., 1965, Prospectus for Engineering Design Centre, Cleveland, Ohio. Case Institute of Technology.
37.Rodgers, P. A., 2000, “Using concept sketches to track design progress”, Design Studies, Vol.21, No.5, 451-464.
38.Ruggiero, V. R., 1988, Teaching thinking across the curriculum, N.Y., Harper & Row.
39.Schön, D. A., 1983, The Reflective Practitioner How Professionals Think in Action, New York: Basic Books.
40.Schön, D. A. & Wiggins, G., 1992, “Kind of seeing and their function in design”, Design Studies, Vol.13, No.2, 135-156.
41.Simon, H. A., 1970, Style in design, In Proceedings of 2nd Annual Environmental Design Research Association Conference eds. P.A., Dowden Hutchinson and Ross.
42.Simon, H. A., 1983, “Search and reasoning in problem solving”, Artificial Intelligence, Vol.21, 7-29.
43.Simon, H. A., 1992, Sciences of the artificial, MIT Press, M,A., Cambridge.
44.Stephen A. R. Scrivener, Linden J. Ball, 2000, “Uncertainty and sketching behaviour” Design Studies, Vol.21, No.5, 465-581.
45.Torrance, E. P. & Orlow, E.B., 1984, Torrance Test of Creative Thinking Streamlined, Revised, Manual, Illinois, Scholastic Testing Service Inc.
46.Visser, W., 1995, “Use of episodic knowledge and information in design problem solving”, Design Studies, Vol.16, No.2, 171-187.
47.Wallas, G., 1926, The Art of Thought, N.Y., Harcourt Brace.