跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.192.48.196) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/06/23 18:20
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:陳宜文
研究生(外文):I-Wen Chen
論文名稱:設計師認知風格對團隊溝通與問題解決的影響
論文名稱(外文):THE INFLUENCE OF DESIGNERS’ CONGNITION STYLES ON THEIR TEAM COMMUNICATION AND PROBLEM-SOLVING
指導教授:葉雯玓葉雯玓引用關係
指導教授(外文):Wen-Dih Yeh
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:大同大學
系所名稱:工業設計學系(所)
學門:設計學門
學類:產品設計學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2005
畢業學年度:93
語文別:中文
論文頁數:133
中文關鍵詞:問題解決團隊溝通認知風格溝通
外文關鍵詞:communicationcongnition styleproblem solvingteam communication
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:46
  • 點閱點閱:963
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:215
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:10
人是群居的動物,因此「溝通」是生活與職場中,時常要面對的重要課題。此外,隨著科技及產業的快速變遷,人們除了要有良好的溝通能力與專業知識外,也必須具備「問題解決」能力。對設計師而言,「團隊溝通」與「問題解決」很重要,因為業界常以「團隊合作」的方式,請設計師執行設計案,且「設計」就是一個解決問題的方式。另一方面,每個人都是單獨的個體,擁有屬於自己的想法、觀念、態度與處事方法,「認知風格」正是影響個體內在思考的因素。因此本研究希望探討「設計師認知風格對團隊溝通與問題解決的影響」,包括「溝通模式」、「問題解決方式」以及「團隊溝通與問題解決的自我評價」三方面,將研究結果運用於設計團隊的互動與管理上,對主管選擇設計團隊成員、設計師間的合作相處與設計案的執行解決,都有所助益。

本研究探討之「溝通模式」包含「頻率」、「方向」與「內容」三方面;「問題解決方式」包含「態度」與「歷程」二方面;「自我評價」包含「溝通滿意度」、「溝通品質」與「問題解決滿意度」三方面。研究方法利用「認知風格量表(Cognitive Style Index)」將設計師認知風格區分為「直覺型」與「分析型」,再請設計師以認知同質性之團隊合作的方式進行溝通來解決問題。研究結果顯示:設計師認知風格對「團隊溝通」與「問題解決」的確有影響。「分析型」和「直覺型」設計師在「團隊溝通」與「問題解決」上,會有不同的特色。「分析型」設計師較適合執行嚴謹、具規範與機能取向的設計案;而「直覺型」設計師則較適合執行隨性發想、無特定規範與趣味取向的設計案。設計部門主管在編組設計團隊時,應視設計案的性質與訴求,或設計預期目標的特性,找出最適合的設計團隊組員,如此才可發揮團隊合作的最大效力。
Human is a kind of animal which live in groups. Therefore, “communication” is a critical issue in our daily life and in jobs. Due to the rapid change of technology and industries, in addition to a good communication ability and professional knowledge, “problem solving” is another key ability. For designers, “team communication” and “problem solving” are relatively important since “team work” is a common pattern for design projects and basically, “design” itself is a way to solve problems. Moreover, everyone is an individual with unique thoughts, concepts, attitudes and social skills. “Cognition style” is the factor which affects the individual internal thinking. Therefore, this study mainly discusses “how the designer’s cognition style affects team communication and problem solving”. The study is focus on 3 parts: “communication modality”, “problem solving methods” and “self evaluation of team communication and problem solving”. Results obtained from this study will be applied on the interaction and management of design team and will be helpful for the selection of design team members, cooperation and interaction among designers and the planning and execution of required design projects.

“Communication modality” discussed in this study include 3 aspects: “frequency”, “direction” and “content”; “problem solving” includes 2 aspects: “attitude” and “process” and “Self evaluation” includes 3 aspects: “communication satisfaction”, “communication quality” and “problem solving satisfaction”. CSI (Cognition Style Index) is used to divide designer’s cognition style into “intuitive” and “analytic” styles and designers is organized in team, work and communicate together to solve problems. The study shows that designer’s cognition style will affect “team communication” and “problem solving”. Meanwhile, “analytic” designers and “intuitive” designers have different characteristics on “team communication” and “problem solving”. “Analytic” designer has better performance in design project which is functional orientated, requires precise and exact and with clear specifications. In contrary, “intuitive” designer is good at design project which has a lot of freedom, without defined specifications and is funny orientated. Therefore, manager of design department who want to organize a design team shall depend on the features and the purposes of the design project to pick designers.
英文摘要…….………......……………………………………………………...……..……i
中文摘要…......……………………………………………………...………………..……iii
誌謝………………………......…………………..………………….……...……..……i v
目錄…….…………….........………………………. ……………….……..…………….v
圖目錄…..……………………………...…………………………………………………viii
表目錄….……………….....…………………………………………….….......……….ix
第一章 緒論………………………………………………………………………...……...1
1.1 研究背景………………………………………………………………………….1
1.2 研究動機與目的………………………………………………………………….2
1.3 研究問題與架構…………………………………………………….……………4
1.4 研究限制………………………………………………………………………….7
1.5 研究重要性與貢獻………………………………………………….……………8
第二章 文獻探討…………………………………………………………………………10
2.1 認知風格……………………………………………………….……..…………10
2.1.1認知風格類型…………………………………………………..…………11
2.1.2 Allinson與Hayes的認知風格量表(Cognitive Style Index :CSI) …….…14
2.2 溝通模式………………………………………………………...………………16
2.2.1 溝通的意義………………………………………………………………16
2.2.2 影響「溝通」的變數………………………………………………………18
2.2.3 溝通模式…………………………………………………………………21
2.2.4 自我溝通評價……………………………………………...…………….26
2.3 問題解決方式…………………………………………………...………………27
2.3.1問題解決歷程………………………………………….…………………28
2.3.2問題解決態度與測量工具…………………………………….…………36
2.4 團隊溝通………………………………………………………...………………39
2.4.1 團體類型與大小…………………………………………………………40
2.4.2 團隊溝通…………………………………………………………………42
2.4.3 腦力激盪…………………………………………………………………43
第三章 研究方法…………………………………………………………………………45
3.1 實驗方法與步驟……………………………………………………...…………46
3.1.1 設計任務訂定………………………………………………...………….46
3.1.2 實驗設備與環境…………………………………………………………48
3.1.3 測量工具與訪談題目訂定………………………………………………49
3.2 前期實驗…………………………………………………………...……………54
3.3正式實驗…………………………………………………………………………56
第四章 研究結果與分析…………………………………………………………………60
4.1 設計師認知風格與溝通模式………………………………………...…………60
4.1.1 「直覺型」與「分析型」設計團隊的溝通頻率…………………………60
4.1.2 「直覺型」與「分析型」設計團隊的溝通方向…………………………62
4.1.3 「直覺型」與「分析型」設計團隊的語文溝通內容……………………65
4.1.4 「直覺型」與「分析型」設計團隊的非語文溝通內容…………………69
4.2 設計師認知風格與問題解決方式……………………………………...………80
4.2.1是否解決問題對回答問題解決量表(PSI)的影響………………………80
4.2.2 設計師認知風格與問題解決態度的關係………………………………82
4.2.3 「直覺型」與「分析型」設計團隊之問題解決歷程概述…………………87
4.2.4 設計師認知風格與問題解決歷程的關係………………………………90
4.3 設計師認知風格與自我評價………………………………………...…………93
第五章 結論與未來研究方向……………………………………………………………97
5.1 結論……………………………………………………………...………………97
5.2 討論與未來研究方向……………………………………………...……………99
參考文獻…………………………………………………………………………………101
附錄………………………………………………………………………………………111
附錄1 認知風格量表…………………………….…………………...…………111
附錄2 問題解決態度量表…………….……………………....…………………113
附錄3 前期實驗主持人任務……………………………….……...……………115
附錄4 設計任務說明稿……………………………………....…………………116
附錄5 設計任務………………………………………………………...………117
附錄6 自我評價問卷……………………………………………………………119
附錄7 前測實驗結果……………………………………..…………...…………120
附錄8 設計團隊執行設計任務結果………………….…..……..………………129
中文文獻
1.王文正(民92)。影響產品創意認知之相關研究。長庚大學工業設計研究所碩士論文。
2.王彥程(民89)。台灣企業員工人際溝通能力之衡量及其量表發展之研究。長榮管理學院經營管理研究所碩士論文。
3.王瑪麗(民74)。人際問題解決訓練對國中女生人際問題解決能力、態度與人際適應的影響。台灣師範大學輔導研究所碩士論文。
4.王春展(民86)。專家與生手間問題解決能力的差異及其在教學上的啟示。教育研究資訊5(2),頁80-90。
5.方崇雄(民84)。國民中學生活科技教育問題解決模式課程設計與實驗研究。中華民國工藝教育學會。
6.古凱文(民93)。溝通過程、溝通品質與技術移轉績效因果關係之探討-以電子資訊產業為例。銘傳大學管理科學研究所碩士論文。
7.吳天方(民85)。我國師範大學工業教育學生問題解決和學習風格之相關研究。「一九九六年國際技學素養教育」研討會論文集,頁39-48。
8.余德彰、林文綺、王介丘(民90)。劇本導引。田園城市文化有限公司。
9.李咏吟(民87)。認知教學:理論與策略。台北:心理出版社。
10.李佳倫(民92)。主管與員工認知、溝通風格之相似性對員工溝通滿足、工作滿足、工作績效、與離職傾向的影響。國立政治大學心理研究所碩士論文。
11.李雅怡(民92)。年級、城鄉別、出生序、建設性思考、情緒能力與國小高年級學童科技創造力之關係。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文。
12.李隆盛(民83)。工藝教材教法新趨勢:模組化的課程設計與問題解決式的教學策略。菁義季刊6(4),頁2-21。
13.李淑媛(民84)。高一學生問題解決態度、生涯不確定源與生涯決定狀態之相關究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文。
14.吳育昇(民88)。創造性問題解決教學應用於機械職類專題製作的探討。機械技術雜誌(12),頁104-111。
15.洪榮昭(民86)。問題解決的思考模式。「技術問題解決能力發展研究」研討會報告。
16.徐木蘭(民83)。行為與科學管理。台北:三民書局。
17.涂崇俊(民66)。國民中學校長-教師溝通問題研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
18.許書務(民87)。問題導向學習之教學策略研究:以專科微電腦應用系統設計專題製作為例。國立台灣師範大學工業科技教育研究所博士論文。
19.唐玄輝(民86)。設計思考中口語整合編碼系統初探-以工業設計活動為編碼案例。國立交通大學應用藝術研究所碩士論文。
20.陳怡琪(民88)。國小高年級學童實施問題解決教學之實驗研究─以家庭垃圾清理為例。國立台灣師範大學家政教育研究所碩士論文。
21.陳明溥、顏榮泉(民90)。網路化問題導向學習系統之發展與學習歷程分析。「第五屆全球華人學習科技」研討會論文集,頁873-876。
22.陳薏文(民93)。運用問題解決模式之創意值評估。國立成功大學工業設計研究所碩士論文。
23.陳禮文(民87)。問題解決為導向的設計思考過程-專家與生手的比較。淡江大學建築研究所碩士論文。
24.張秀蓉、黃鈴媚、游梓翔、江中信 合著,張秀蓉 編(民87)。口語傳播概論。正中書局。
25.張俊彥(民87)。問題解決為基礎之電腦輔助教材發展研究-中等學校地球科學(二)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究報告。
26.張春興(民80)。教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐。台北:東華書局。
27.張春興(民85)。現代心理學。臺北市:東華。
28.郭有遹(民83)。創造性的問題解決法。台北:心理。
29.舒緒緯(民79)。國小教師溝通滿意度與工作滿意度關係之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
30.董家莒(民89)。問題解決為基礎之電腦輔助教學成效。國立台灣師範大學地球科學研究所碩士論文。
31.楊坤原(民85)。科學教育學刊,第四卷第二期,頁135-159。
32.詹秉鈞(民92)。以電腦輔助教材進行交線與展開圖教學對學生學習表現之研究。國立台灣師範大學工業教育學系碩士論文。
33.鍾一先(民86)。問題解決教學策略應用於國民中學生活科技之實驗研究。國立臺灣師範大學工業科技教育學系博士論文。
34.鍾聖校。認知心理學。台北:心理出版社。
35.謝安田(民71)。企業管理。台北:五南圖書公司。
36.謝文全(民77)。教育行政:理論與實務。台北:文景。
37.簡良平(民88)。科技整合之「問題-解決」教學策略可行性研究。課程與教學季刊,2(3),頁103-116。
38.簡輝龍(民81)。設計師心智活動之探討-構想草圖對設計思考之影響以及理論應用。國立交通大學工業工程研究所碩士論文。
39.劉美慧(民81)。高職學生認知型態與職業道德判斷之研究。國立台灣師範大學公民訓育研究所碩士論文。
40.劉英台(民75)。國中生人際問題解決態度與相關變項之關係暨「人際問題解決小團體輔導方案」效果研究。國立台灣師範大學輔導研究所碩士論文。
41.康鳳梅、戴文雄(民90)。高工學生機械製圖(交線與展開)空間能力與問題解決能力提昇之研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告,NSC89-2511-S003-135。
42.Rawlinson J. Geoffrey著,林隆儀 譯(民73)。創造性思考與腦力激盪法-應用實例。臺北:清華管理科學。

英文文獻
1.Agor, W. H. (1986). The Logic of Intuitive Decision Making: A Research Approach for Top Management. New York.
2.Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (1996). The Cognitive Style Index: A measure of intuition-analysis for organizational research. Journal of management Studies, 33(1), pp.119-136.
3.Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (1994). Matching the cognitive styles of management students and teachers: a preliminary study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79(3), pp.1256-1258.
4.Allinson, C. W., Armstrong, S. J., & Hayes, J. (2001). The effect of cognitive style on leader-member exchange: A study of manager-subordinate dyads. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(2).
5.Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality:A Psychological Interpretation. New York.
6.Armstrong, S. J. (1999). Cognitive style and dyadic interaction: a study of supervisors and subordinates engaged in working relationships. Unpublished Ph. D.thesis, University of Leeds, UK.
7.Barnard, C. I. (1968). The Functions of the Executive. Cambrige, MA: Harvard Unive. Press.
8.Bavelas & Barret (1951). An experimental approach to organizational communication. Personnel, 370, 35-61
9.Bieri. J., Atkins, A., Briar, S., Leaman. R., Miller, H., & Tripodi, T. (1966). Clinical and Social Judgment. Wiely, New York.
10.Bieri, J. (1955). Cognitive complexity-simplicity and predictive behavior. Journal of Abnormal and social psychology, 51, pp.263-268.
11.Bostrom, R., (1970). Cognitive, affective and behavioral dimensions of speech attitudes, Journal of Communication.
12.Bransford, J. & Stein, B.S. (1984). The IDEAL problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning, and creativity. New York: W.H. Freeman.
13.Brilhart, J. K (1978). Effective Group Discussion, 3rd ed. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown.
14.Brown, L. (1961). Communication Facts and Ideas in Bussiness. Englewood Cliffs, N.Y.: Prentice-Hall.
15.Burgoon, J. K. (1983). Nonverbal violations of expectations. In J. M. Wiemann & R. P. Harrison (Eds.), Nonverbal Interaction. Beverly Hills, CA: Stage.
16.Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Dillman, L., & Walther, J. (1995). Interpersonal deception: IV. Effects of suspicion on perceived communication and nonverbal behavior dynamics. Human Communication Research, 22, pp.163-196.
17.Burgoon, J. K. , Buller, D. B., & Guerrero, L. K. (1995). Interpersonal deception: IX. Effects of social skill and nonverbal communication on deception success and detection accuracy. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, pp.289-311.
18.Callahan, J. F., Clark, L. H., & Kellough, R.D (1992). Teaching in the idle and secondary schools. New York: Macmillan Pub.Co.
19.Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath & Co.
20.Driver, M. J. & Mock , T. J. (1974). Human Information Processing, Decision Style Theory and Accounting Information Systems. Working Paper, No39, Graduate School of Business, University of Southern California.
21.D'Zurilla, T. J., & Goldfried, M. R. (1971). Problem solving and behavior modification. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 78, pp.107-126.
22.Entwhistle, N. (1981). Styles of Learning and Teaching. Bulletin of the Los Angeles Neurological Societies, 34, pp.313-320.
23.Francis, D. (1990). Effective problem-solving. London: Routledge.
24.Gardner, R., Holzman, P., Klein, G., Linton, H., & Spence, D. (1959). Cognitive control: a study of individual difference in cognitive behavior. Psychological Issues, 1, Monograph 4.
25.Gazzaniga, M. S. (1971). Changing hemisphere dominance by changing reward probability in split brain monkey, Experimental Neurology, 33, pp.412-419.
26.Greebaum, H. H., (1986). The Measurement of Organization Wide Communication:A Comparison of Three Recognized Instruments. ERIC ED 271796 cs505307.
27.Hanna, L. A., Potter, G. L., & Hagaman, N (1955). Unit teaching in the elementary school. New York: Rinehart & Company, Inc.
28.Harvey, O. J., Hunt, D. E. & Schroder, H. M. (1961). Conceptual Systems and Personality Organization. Wiley, New York.
29.Hatch, L. (1988). Problem Solving approach, In W. Kemp & A. E. Schwaller (Eds.), Instructional Strategies for Technology Education. Council on Technology Teacher Education, 37th Yearbook., pp.87-98.
30.Hecht, Michael L. (1998). Communication Prejudic. English.
31.Henna, L. A., Potter, G. L., & Hagaman, N.(1995). Unit teaching in the elementary school. New York: Rinehart & Company, Inc.
32.Heppner, P. P., & Petersen, C. H. (1982). The development and implications of a personal Problem-Solving Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29(1), pp.66-75.
33.Huber, G. and Richard, Daft (1987). The Information Environment of Organizational. In Handbook of Organizational Communication:An Interdisciplinary Perspectibe. F. Jabliner al., eds. Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 130-164.
34.Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, and L. W. Porter (1987). Handbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
35.Jayaraman, S. (1991). Computer- problem-solving for scientists and engineers. New York: McGraw-Hill.
36.Jonassen, D. H. (2002). Case-Based reasoning and instructional design: Using stories to support problem solving. ETR&D, 50(2), pp.65-77.
37.Jonassen, D., & Prevsih, T.(1999). Learning to solve problems on the Web: Aggregate planning. in a bussiness manngement course. Distance Education, 20(1), pp.49-60.
38.Jones, R. E., & Wilson, K. A (1991). Problem-solving activities for technology education. Austin, Texas: The University of Texasat Austin, Extension Instruction and Materials Center, Division of Continuing Education.
39.Kagan, J. (1965). Reflection-Implusivity and Reading Ability in Primary Grade Children. Child Development, 36, pp.609-628.
40.Kagan, J., Rosman, B. L., Day, D., Albert, J., & Philips, W. (1964). Information processing in the child: significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychological Monographs, 78 (1), whole issue.
41.Kelly, G. A. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York:Norton
42.Klein, G. (1970). Perception, Motives and Personality. Knopf, New York.
43.Kolb, D. A. (1976). Learning Style technical manual. Boston: Mcber and Company.
44.Lasswell , H.D.(1948). The Structure and Function of Communication in Society. In L. Bryson, The communication of ideas, N.Y.: Harper and Bros.
45.Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J.P. (2nd ed). (1993). Business information system: A problem- solving approach. Orlando, FL: The Dryden Press.
46.Luria, A. R. (1966). Higher cortical functions in man. New York, Basic Books.
47.Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, Problem Solving, Cognition. 2nd ed. NY: W. H. Freeman.
48.Messick, S. (1984). The nature of cognitive styles: problems and promise in educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 19, pp.59-74.
49.Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey-Crofts.
50.Nickerson, R.C. (1995). Fundamentals of Qbasic programming: problem-solving and application development. New York: Harper Collins College.
51.Omer Akin and Chengtah Lin(1995). Design protocol data and novel design decisions. Design Studies Vol 16 No 2 April p 228.
52.Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination. New York: Scribner Press.
53.Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it: A new method of mathematical method. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
54.Polya, G. (1981). Mathematical Discovery: on understanding, learning, and teaching problem solving. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
55.Potter, D., and Anderson, M. P. (1976). Discussion in Small Group: A Guide to Effective Practice, 3rd ed., Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.
56.Rayner Canham, G. W., & Rayner Canham, M. F.(1990). Teaching Chemistry problem-solving techniques by microcomputer. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 9 (4), pp.17-23.
57.Richard (1987). Action-research and the nature of social inquiry: professional innovation and educational work. USA: Gower Publishing Company.
58.Riding, R. J., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive Styles- an overview and integration, Educational Psychology, 11, pp.193-215.
59.Schram(1949). The Process and Effects of Mass Communication. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.
60.Shannon & Weaver (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Univ. of Illinois Press.
61.Shaw, M. (1981). Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
62.Smeltzer, L. R. & Thomas, G. F.(1994).Managers as writers: a meta an alysis of research in context. Journal of business and technical communication, 8, pp.186-211.
63.Solso, R. L. (5th ed.). (1998). Cognitive Psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
64.Solso, R., & Hoffman , C . A. (1991). Influence of Soviet scholars. American Psychologist, 46(3), pp.251-253.
65.Solso, R. L. (4th ed.) (1995). Cognitive psychology. Needham Height, MA: Allyn Bacon.
66.Sperry, R. W. (1964). The great cerebral commissure. Scientific American, No. 174.
67.Sternberg, R . J. (1988). The nature of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
68.Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. (1995). Defying the Crowd: Cultivating Creativity in a Culture of Conformity. New York: The Free Press.
69.Streufert, S., & Nogami, G. Y. (1989). Cognitive Style and Complexity:Implications for I/O Psychology. In: C. L. Cooper and I. Robertson (Eds). International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Wiley, Chichester.
70.Tennant, M. (1988). Psychology and adult learning. London: Routledge.
71.Thomas, E. J. (1989). A study of the effects of a computer graphics problem- solving activity on student achievement, attitudes, and task motivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia St a t e University, GA.
72.Wallas, G., (1926). The Art of Though., N.Y., Harcourt Brace.
73.Wilson, D. K. (1988). Management learning: a grounded study of the written reflections of managers on their approach real time work problem. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, University of Lancaster, England.
74.Witkin H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. F., & Karp, S. A. (1962). Psychological Differentiation. New York: Wiley.
75.Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Ruskin, E., & Karp, S.A. (1971). A Manual for the Embedded Figures Test. Palo Alto, Cal.: Consulting Psychologists Press.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top