臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

創造立體造形與必須先憑空想像造形的輪廓，學生畫出他們想像中的造形相當困難，在教學中學生們的回應是認為自身空間能力不足，難以在腦海中憑空構圖，然而缺少手繪工具來幫助視覺化，創新想法便失去了see-move-see的反覆思考及細節化過程。
有效的手繪教學在於教導學生能夠正確的比例及透視表現視覺化自己對創新的想像，在正確的繪製下累積自己的想法。因此本研究目標在建立冥想臨摹學習及體驗式教學方式來增進學生創造力的質與量，而透過實際執行兩種不同教學方式並評估成果。期間也同時探討空間能力與造形創造力之間的關聯性。
本研究分別邀請20位及16位大學工業設計系一年級學生參與兩種教學模式課程，在共同的基礎教學後，分成體驗式學習組與冥想臨摹學習組分別進行學習。欲探討學生分組學習後之造形創造力、空間能力以及手繪造形數量有何改變，此三項能力之評估方式有空間能力測驗卷、專家評分和複雜度自評表。
研究結果顯示空間能力與造形創造力間並無顯著關聯性，而創新的學習在於個人多元化的視覺經驗，因此在參考過建築物的細節後，學生經過學習後空間能力、造形創造力和手繪造形數量皆有所提升；體驗式組學生經過學習後空間能力有所提升，而造形創造力與手繪造形數量有所下降，對於未來創新手繪教學也加強“多觀察他人作品”的重要元素。

In design industry, sketching is considered as an important tool to assist thinking process to detail, evaluate and communicate design concepts.Shapes are created prior to the contour of imaginationby which it is difficult for students to draw out without visual cues. Students often reckon that the performance depends on spatial ability.
Effective sketch technique bases on being able to accumulate visualized creative concepts in correct ratio and prospective.Therefore, this research aims to enhance quality and quantity of creative sketch by two curriculums: 1)copying and 2)experiencing in which we evaluated the outcome of students’ spatial ability and creativity of shape creating.
Two sketch training groups of 20 and 16 first year students from Department of Industrial Design of Tatung University are recruited to participate the experiment. After the basic drawing technique were trained, one group was given the coping lessons whereas another one was given the experiencing lessons. Spatial ability and creativity was test before and after given the two different lessons. Experts were employed to rate the creativity and complexity of the students’ performance.
As the results, spatial ability is not necessarily relevant to creativity of shaping. Creativity and spatial ability were significantly improved after observing and imitating the details of their chosen buildings. Students from Experiencing lesson have improved their spatial ability but creativity. This implies that creativity is based on learning from coping which is an important element for future creative sketch teaching.

謝誌 i
中文摘要 ii
Abstract iii
目錄 iv
圖目錄 vii
表目錄 ix
第壹章 緒論 1
1.1研究背景與動機 1
1.2研究假設 2
第貳章 文獻探討 3
2.1繪圖教學 3
2.1.1繪圖流程 3
2.1.2冥想臨摹教學 4
2.1.3體驗式教學 4
2.2創造力 5
2.2.1造型創造力評估 5
2.3空間能力 6
2.3.1靜態空間能力 7
2.3.2動態空間能力 7
2.4造形元素 7
2.4.1造形元素：點 8
2.4.2造形元素：線 8
2.4.3造形元素：面 9
2.4.4鏡射、弧形、旋轉和縮放 9
第參章 研究方法 9
3.1實驗設計 9
3.1.1實驗流程 10
3.2課程設計 10
3.2.1課程目標 11
3.2.2課程大綱 11
3.3課程各階段介紹 12
3.3.1第一階段、第二階段：基礎設計概念 12
3.3.2第三階段：分組學習 18
3.4 受測者 25
3.5測驗方法 25
3.5.1造形創造力測驗 25
3.5.2空間能力測驗 27
3.5.3手繪造形複雜度和困難度主觀測試 28
第肆章結果與討論 30
4.1結果分析與假說檢定 30
4.2討論 34
4.2.1冥想臨摹教學法探討 34
4.2.2體驗式教學法探討 36
第伍章結論與未來發展 38
5.1結論 38
5.1.1兩學習組總結比較 38
5.1.2課程學習與空間能力、造型元素、造型創造力之關係 39
5.2研究限制及後續研究建議 40
5.2.1研究限制 40
5.2.2未來研究建議 41
第陸章參考文獻 42

圖目錄
圖2-1四個基本造形元素 9
圖3-1實驗流程圖 10
圖3-2課程學習流程圖 12
圖3-3直線練習 14
圖3-4單點、兩點、三點透視 14
圖3-5透視概念 15
圖3-6基本透視概念練習 15
圖3-7受測者t-19之練習 16
圖3-8圓的透視圖 17
圖3-9垂直視角變化圖 17
圖3-10圓形方塊透視 18
圖3-11學生圖面之練習 18
圖3-12立體造形二分法教學示意圖 20
圖3-13手繪立體造形 20
圖3-14方塊範例(高創造力) 21
圖3-15方塊範例(低創造力) 21
圖3-16方塊之錯誤範例 22
圖3-17受測者t-18之仿建築物創作過程 23
圖3-18體驗式學習教學概念 23
圖3-19體驗式學習組 PU 模型 25
圖3-20附刻度立體方塊模板 26
圖3-21應用基本造形元素為基礎所組合而成的新造形元素 29
圖4-1受測者t-5教學前之手繪圖形 34
圖4-2受測者t-5教學後之手繪圖形 35
圖4-3受測者t-18教學前之手繪圖形 35
圖4-4受測者t-18教學後之手繪圖形 35
圖4-5受測者t-29教學前之手繪圖形 36
圖4-6受測者t-29教學後之手繪圖形 36
圖5.1體驗式學習組受測者之圖面 39
圖5.2冥想臨摹學習組受測者之圖面 39
 
表目錄
表3-1受測者資料 25
表3-2創造力評分表 27
表3-3空間能力測驗題型 28
表4-1受測者創造力與複雜度成績 30
表4-2複雜度與造型創造力之相關分析 31
表4-3空間能力、造型創造力、複雜度、造型元素之相關分析 32
表4-4受測者空間能力成績 33
表4-5造型元素、造型創造力、複雜度之相關分析 33
表4-6教學前後繪圖造型之數量 37
表5.1研究假說與研究結果一覽表 38
表5.2兩學習法綜合比較 38

中文部分
吉同凱. (2011). 3D 電腦遊戲玩家空間能力與尋路策略對地標使用與空間知識之影響. (碩士), 交通大學, 新竹.
何友鋒, 陸建浩, &沈永堂. (2008). 建築系高中職學生空間設計能力評量之研究. 設計學報 (Journal of Design), 11(2), 83-100.
呂清夫. (1984). 造形原理, 台北: 雄獅圖書股份有限公司.
林宜蓁. (2004). 另類觀點與詮釋：從班雅明的模仿論看哈日族.
林幸台, &王木榮. (1994). 威廉斯創造力測驗指導手冊. 台北: 心理.
林崇宏. (1997). 基本設計教育課程的規劃理論與方法---以「造形」為主之教
學方法探討. 67-74.
張天鳳, &李峻德. (2005). 3D 虛擬環境中地標輔助與尋路策略傾向對空間知識之影響.
張全成. (1992). 線畫。國民小學美勞科教材教法研究. 國立新竹師範學院, 新竹.
陳冠燁. (2002). 建築空間性的認知地圖. (碩士), 交通大學, 新竹.
陳龍安. (1984). 基爾福特創造性教學的策略: 國教月刊.
蔣家唐. (1995). 視覺空間認知能力向度分析暨數理—語文資優學生視覺空間認知能力差異研究. 行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告, NSC84-2511-S-018-003.

英文部分

AEE. (1995). Association for Experiential Education: AEE definition of experiential education.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357.
Arden, R., Chavez, R. S., Grazioplene, R., & Jung, R. E. (2010). Neuroimaging creativity: a psychometric view. Behavioural brain research, 214(2), 143-156.
Burt, C. (1949). The structure of the mind. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 19(3), 176-199. Retrieved from
Contreras, M. J., Colom, R., Hernandez, J. M., & Santacreu, J. (2003). Is static spatial performance distinguishable from dynamic spatial performance? A latent-variable analysis. The Journal of general psychology, 130(3), 277-288.
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing: Springer.
Dow, S. P., Glassco, A., Kass, J., Schwarz, M., Schwartz, D. L., & Klemmer, S. R. (2012). Parallel prototyping leads to better design results, more divergence, and increased self-efficacy Design Thinking Research (pp. 127-153): Springer.
Dow, S. P., Heddleston, K., & Klemmer, S. R. (2009). The Efficacy of Prototyping Under Time Constraint. Creativity and Cognition.
Garner, S. W. (1990). Drawing and designing: the case for reappraisal. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 9(1), 39-55.
Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought: MIt Press.
Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological bulletin, 53(4), 267.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence.
Hershkowitz, R., Ben-Chaim, D., Hoyles, C., Lappan, G., Mitchelmore, M., & Vinner, S. (1990). Psychological aspects of learning geometry. Mathematics and cognition, 70-95.
Kiraly, D. (2014). A social constructivist approach to translator education: Empowerment from theory to practice: Routledge.
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development: FT press.
Kozlowski, P. J., & Yakel, N. C. Copying .... The Direct Line to Creativity. Art Education, 33(8), 24-27.
Kozlowski, P. J., & Yakel, N. C. (1980). Copying…. The Direct Line to Creativity. Art Education, 33(8), 24-27.
Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child development, 1479-1498.
Liu, Y.-T. (1995). Some phenomena of seeing shapes in design. Design Studies, 16(3), 367-385.
Lohman, D. F., Pellegrino, J. W., Alderton, D. L., & Regian, J. (1987). Dimensions and components of individual differences in spatial abilities Intelligence and cognition: Contemporary frames of reference (pp. 253-312): Springer.
Prats, M., Lim, S., Jowers, I., Garner, S. W., & Chase, S. (2009). Transforming shape in design: observations from studies of sketching. Design Studies, 30(5), 503-520. Retrieved from
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive strategies. Educational leadership, 49(7), 26-33.
Sarkar, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (2008). Studying engineering design creativity-developing a common definition and associated measures.
Schon, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Design studies, 13(2), 135-156.
Scott Robertson, T. B. (2013). How to Draw: drawing and sketching objects and environments from your imagination.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. Handbook of creativity, 1, 3-15.
Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design studies, 18(4), 385-403.
Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius: WH Freeman New York.
Wilson, M., & Wilson, B. (1982). Teaching children to draw: A guide for teachers and parents: Davis Publications.
Wood. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.