本研究的核心目標為探討不同設計經驗學生在使用視覺類比時的策略，以視覺 類比刺激作為創意發展中的參考物，捕捉學生如何使用類比以及思考模式，並且分 析個別產出的創意度。因為許多認知研究表明設計師通常以視覺化的方式進行思考， 並且經常尋找範例來獲取靈感，加上使用視覺類比可提高設計質量，這些跡象表明 視覺類比使用並不是偶然發生，而是必然的結果。然而，有研究表明使用圖像進行 類比發想時也存在著一些風險，類比刺激可能成為激發靈感的墊腳石，也可能引發 固定效應，成為創意的絆腳石。因此示例可能同時存在消極與積極的影響，究竟圖 像刺激是如何影響創意構思?加上現今「因材施教」已成為未來教育領域的顯學， 設計教育也必須依照學習者的個人特質進行適當的類比刺激，進而有效激發學生之 設計構思靈感，並且提高設計創意中的數量、新穎性、實用性等評量指標，本研究 之結果將幫助師生找尋適切的設計創意構思之教學模式。
在本研究方法中，邀請 12 位就讀工業設計系之學生參與繪圖實驗，其中 6 位新 手設計師(大一)而 6 位是中級設計師(大四)，透過指定的設計題目促使學習者 展現在思考問題時的解決過程策略，並且以放聲思考(thinking aloud)及回溯訪談 (retrospective interview)的方式捕捉概念生成的過程與細節。在繪圖任務結束後， 將各組別之草圖讓專家評委進行創意評分，其中本研究關注創造力中的新穎性 (novelty)、實用性(practical)及數量(quantity)，藉由不同的創造力維度評分 結果與發展策略互相討論，以此探討不同設計經驗學生的創造力與策略之間的關聯。
本研究結果除了以質性方法探討經驗、示例、創造力三者之關聯外，同時藉由 量化方法(卡方檢定)將創造力得分與設計經驗高低、示例距離交叉比較，即使 Pearson 積差相關係數顯示此三者之間並不存在相關性，然而深入挖掘個人的發展策 略後，著實發現受測者彼此間具有極大差異的發展模式，透過歸納列舉特定經驗受 到特定示例刺激時的典型策略，確實發現創造力得分極高與極低的學生展現獨特的 行為模式。以高度創造力的策略發展為例，必須將眾多設計問題以「單一解決方案」為目標，並且在過程中傾向以「重建草圖」的方式持續優化先前的概念，除此之外， 問題與解決方案會共同發展、進化，作為後續發展概念的參考來源。
從編碼結果的證據發現，設計經驗差異反映在視覺相似性步驟中，歸因於不同 程度的知識差異，使得操作與程序性知識、概念知識、分析問題知識三者的連結性 有所不同，最直接影響草圖(概念)之間彼此的共用性、連結性，間接導致他們會 以不同的策略面對問題與生成解決方案。而示例距離遠近的作用有兩個顯著的證據， 第一，遠距離示例促使個人用更長路徑與更多步驟去解決問題，並且發展更多的草 圖數量;第二，近距離示例是現成的良好解決方案，因此促使個人用更簡短的相似 性步驟進行類比，並且傾向以外觀相似性做為主要類比模式。經過本研究討論的結 果使設計創造力的來源更加清晰，這些特定策略模式與設計經驗、示例距離之關聯 能幫助建立設計教育實務中的指導方針，目的是為了根據不同經驗學習者找出適合 的案例刺激，藉此提升設計創造力的核心價值。

The core objective of this study is to explore the strategies employed by students with varying levels of design experience when using visual analogies. By using visual analogy stimuli as references in the creative development process, the study aims to capture how students use analogies and their thought patterns, and to analyze the creativity of their outputs. Cognitive research suggests that designers often think visually and frequently seek examples for inspiration. The use of visual analogies has been shown to improve design quality, indicating that the use of analogies is not a random occurrence but a deliberate outcome. However, studies also suggest that using images for analogical thinking can be risky; while analogy stimuli can serve as a stepping stone to inspiration, they can also lead to fixation effects, hindering creativity. Thus, examples may have both negative and positive impacts. How exactly do visual stimuli influence creative thinking? Moreover, the modern emphasis on "teaching according to aptitude" in education means that design education must also tailor analogy stimuli to the learner's individual characteristics. This approach can effectively stimulate students' design inspiration and improve key creativity metrics such as quantity, novelty, and practicality. The results of this study will help educators and students find appropriate teaching models for generating creative design ideas.
In the research methodology, 12 students from the Industrial Design Department were invited to participate in a drawing experiment, including six novice designers (freshmen) and six intermediate designers (seniors). Through assigned design tasks, the study prompted learners to showcase their problem-solving strategies. The process of concept generation and its details were captured using think-aloud protocols and retrospective interviews. After the drawing tasks were completed, experts evaluated the creativity of the sketches, focusing on dimensions of creativity such as novelty, practicality, and quantity. The study discussed the relationship between creativity scores and development strategies to explore the connection between creativity and strategies in students with different levels of design experience.
In addition to using qualitative methods to explore the relationship between experience, examples, and creativity, the study employed quantitative methods (chi-square tests) to cross-compare creativity scores with levels of design experience and example distance. Even though the Pearson correlation coefficient indicated no direct relationship among these three factors, further investigation into individual development strategies revealed significant differences in development patterns among participants. By summarizing the typical strategies used when individuals with specific experience levels are stimulated by specific examples, the study found that students with very high or very low creativity scores exhibited unique behavior patterns. For example, highly creative strategy development involves focusing on a "single solution" to many design problems and continuously refining previous concepts through "sketch reconstruction." Additionally, problems and solutions co-evolve, serving as references for subsequent concept development.
Evidence from the coding results indicates that differences in design experience are reflected in the visual similarity steps. These differences are attributed to varying levels of knowledge, affecting the connectivity between operational and procedural knowledge, conceptual knowledge, and problem-analysis knowledge. This directly influences the shared and connectedness of sketches (concepts), indirectly leading to different strategies for addressing problems and generating solutions. There are two significant pieces of evidence regarding the effect of example distance. First, distant examples encourage individuals to solve problems using longer paths and more steps, leading to the development of more sketches. Second, close examples are often ready-made solutions, prompting individuals to use shorter similarity steps for analogy, with a tendency to rely on visual similarity as the primary analogy mode. The results of this study clarify the sources of design creativity, showing that these specific strategy patterns and their relationships with design experience and example distance can help establish guidelines for design education practices. The aim is to identify suitable case stimuli for learners with different experience levels, thereby enhancing the core value of design creativity.

牛红伟, 郝佳, 王璐, & 周咏佳. (2022). 功能词对设计思维的启发效用研究. 北京理工 大学学报自然版, 42(2), 168-176.
巫靜宜. (2000). 比較網路教學與傳統教學對學習效果之研究---以 Word 2000 之教學 為例. 淡江大學資訊管理學系碩士班碩士論文 (未出版).
周玉霜, & 唐璽惠. (2006). 成功的教學從尊重學生的個別差異學習開始. 學校行政, (44), 110-123.
林生傳. (2007). 教育心理學. 台灣五南圖書出版股份有限公司.
張春興，教育心理學—三化取向的理論與實踐，台北:東華，民 84
黃英修, & 劉育東. (2004). 從專家, 風格到創造力的形成過程之認知行為探討 (Doctoral dissertation).
蘇靜宣. (2006). 設計系學生之學習風格與設計思考之關係.
Adams, R. S., Forin, T., Chua, M., & Radcliffe, D. (2016). Characterizing the work of coaching during design reviews. Design Studies, 45, 30-67.
Altshuller, G. (2000). The innovation algorithm. Technical Innovation Center. Inc., Worcester, MA, 84-86.
Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 35(1), 124-140.Batterham & Atkinson, 2005
Ball, L. J., Ormerod, T. C., & Morley, N. J. (2004). Spontaneous analogising in engineering design: a comparative analysis of experts and novices. Design studies, 25(5), 495-508.
Bearman, C. R., Ball, L. J., & Ormerod, T. C. (2019, April). An exploration of real-world analogical problem solving in novices. In Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 101-106). Routledge.
Bennett, C. (1979). Teaching Students as They Would Be Taught: The Importance of Cultural Perspective. Educational Leadership, 36(4).Besemer & Treffinger, 1981;
Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. Psychology Press.
Bonnardel, N. (1999, October). Creativity in design activities: The role of analogies in a constrained cognitive environment. In Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Creativity & cognition (pp. 158-165).
Bornschier, V., Chase-Dunn, C., & Rubinson, R. (1978). Cross-national evidence of the effects of foreign investment and aid on economic growth and inequality: A survey of findings and a reanalysis. American journal of Sociology, 84(3), 651-683.
Bostrom, R. P., Olfman, L., & Sein, M. K. (1990). The importance of learning style in end- user training. Mis Quarterly, 101-119.
Cagan, J., Kotovsky, K., & Simon, H. A. (2001). Scientific discovery and inventive engineering design: Cognitive and computational similarities. Formal engineering design synthesis, 442-465.
Cardoso, C., & Badke‐Schaub, P. E. T. R. A. (2011). The influence of different pictorial representations during idea generation. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(2), 130-146.
Cardoso, C., Badke-Schaub, P., & Eris, O. (2016). Inflection moments in design discourse: How questions drive problem framing during idea generation. Design Studies, 46, 59-78.
Casakin, H. P. (2006). Assessing the use of metaphors in the design process. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33(2), 253-268.
Casakin, H., & Kreitler, S. (2010). Motivation for creativity in architectural design and engineering design students: Implications for design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20, 477-493.
Casakin, H., & Kreitler, S. (2011). The cognitive profile of creativity in design. Thinking skills and creativity, 6(3), 159-168.
Chan, J., Dow, S., & Schunn, C. (2014, February). Conceptual distance matters when building on others' ideas in crowd-collaborative innovation platforms. In Proceedings of the companion publication of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 141-144).
Chan, J., Fu, K., Schunn, C., Cagan, J., Wood, K., & Kotovsky, K. (2011). On the benefits and pitfalls of analogies for innovative design: Ideation performance based on analogical distance, commonness, and modality of examples.
Chang, J. (2017). The effects of buyer-supplier's collaboration on knowledge and product innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 65, 129-143.
Chi, M. T. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The journal of the learning sciences, 6(3), 271-315.
Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive science, 5(2), 121-152.
Chiu, I., & Shu, L. H. (2012). Investigating effects of oppositely related semantic stimuli on design concept creativity. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(4), 271-296.
Christensen, B. T., & Ball, L. J. (2016). Dimensions of creative evaluation: Distinct design and reasoning strategies for aesthetic, functional and originality judgments. Design Studies, 45, 116-136.
Christiaans, H. H. C. M., & Dorst, K. H. (1992). Cognitive models in industrial design engineering: a protocol study. Design theory and methodology, 42(1), 131-140.
Christiaans, H. H. C. M., & Dorst, K. H. (1992). Cognitive models in industrial design engineering: a protocol study. Design theory and methodology, 42(1), 131-140.
Chrysikou, E. G., & Weisberg, R. W. (2005). Following the wrong footsteps: fixation effects of pictorial examples in a design problem-solving task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(5), 1134.
Collado-Ruiz, D., & Ostad-Ahmad-Ghorabi, H. (2010). Influence of environmental information on creativity. Design Studies, 31(5), 479-498.
Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design studies, 3(4), 221-227.
Cross, N. (1990). The nature and nurture of design ability. Design studies, 11(3), 127-140.
Cross, N., & Cross, A. C. (1998). Expertise in engineering design. Research in engineering design, 10, 141-149.
Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. (1994). Design expertise amongst student designers. Journal of Art & Design Education, 13(1), 39-56.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Flow and Creativity. Namta Journal, 22(2), 60-97.
D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, and B. Kokinov (Eds), The Analogical Mind. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2001).
Davies, J., & Goel, A. K. (2001, August). Visual analogy in problem solving. In IJCAI (pp. 377-384).
Davies, J., Goel, A. K., & Nersessian, N. J. (2003). Visual re-representation in creative analogies. In The Third Workshop on Creative Systems. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1-12).
Demirkan, H., & Afacan, Y. (2012). Assessing creativity in design education: Analysis of creativity factors in the first-year design studio. Design studies, 33(3), 262-278.
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem– solution. Design studies, 22(5), 425-437.
Dorta, T., Pérez, E., & Lesage, A. (2008). The ideation gap:: hybrid tools, design flow and practice. Design studies, 29(2), 121-141.
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving.(Psychological Monographs, No. 270.).
Falkeneheimer, B., Forbus, K. D., & Gentner, D. (1986). The structure mapping engine. In Proceeding of the Sixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Philadelphia, PA.
Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D., & Gentner, D. (1989). The structure-mapping engine: Algorithm and examples. Artificial intelligence, 41(1), 1-63.
Forbus, K. D., Gentner, D., & Law, K. (1995). MAC/FAC: A model of similarity‐based retrieval. Cognitive science, 19(2), 141-205.
Fu, K., Chan, J., Cagan, J., Kotovsky, K., Schunn, C., & Wood, K. (2013). The meaning of “near” and “far”: the impact of structuring design databases and the effect of distance of analogy on design output. Journal of Mechanical Design, 135(2), 021007.
Garger, S., & Guild, P. (1984). Learning Styles: The Crucial Differences. Curriculum review, 23(1), 9-12.
Gelwick, B. P. (1985). Cognitive development of women. New Directions for Student Services.
Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American psychologist, 52(1), 45.
Goel, A. K. (1997). Design, analogy, and creativity. IEEE expert, 12(3), 62-70.
Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. MIT press.
Goldschmidt, G. (1994). On visual design thinking: the vis kids of architecture. Design studies, 15(2), 158-174.
Goldschmidt, G., & Smolkov, M. (2006). Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance. Design studies, 27(5), 549-569.
Gooden, D. J., Preziosi, R. C., & Barnes, F. B. (2009). An examination of Kolb's learning style inventory. American Journal of Business Education (AJBE), 2(3), 57-62.
Hao, J., Zhao, Q., & Yan, Y. (2017). A function-based computational method for design concept evaluation. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 32, 237-247.
Hasirci, D., & Demirkan, H. (2003). Creativity in Learning Environments: The Case of Two Sixth Grade Art‐Rooms. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 37(1), 17-41.
Helms, M., Vattam, S. S., & Goel, A. K. (2009). Biologically inspired design: process and products. Design studies, 30(5), 606-622.
Herbert, D. M. (1988). Study drawings in architectural design: Their properties as a graphic medium. Journal of Architectural Education, 41(2), 26-38.
Hernandez, N. V., Shah, J. J., & Smith, S. M. (2010). Understanding design ideation mechanisms through multilevel aligned empirical studies. Design studies, 31(4), 382-410.
Herring, S. R., Chang, C. C., Krantzler, J., & Bailey, B. P. (2009, April). Getting inspired! Understanding how and why examples are used in creative design practice. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 87-96).
Hey, J., Linsey, J., Agogino, A. M., & Wood, K. L. (2008). Analogies and metaphors in creative design. International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(2), 283.
Holyoak, K. J., & Koh, K. (1987). Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory & cognition, 15(4), 332-340.
Holyoak, K. J., Thagard, P., & Sutherland, S. (1995). Mental leaps: analogy in creative thought. Nature, 373(6515), 572-572.
Hunter, W. E. (1980). Relationships between learning styles, grades, and student ratings of instruction. Community/Junior College Quarterly of Research and Practice, 5(1), 73-74.
I. Blanchette, and K. Dunbar, Analogy Use in Naturalistic Settings: The Influence of Audience, Emotion, and Goals, Memory and Cognition, 29(5), 2001, pp. 730±735.
J. E. Hummel, and K. J. Holyoak, Distributed Representations of Structure: A Theory of Analogical Access and Mapping, Psychological Review, 104(3), 1997, pp. 427±466.
Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design studies, 12(1), 3-11.
Kuppuraju, N., Ittimakin, P., & Mistree, F. (1985). Design through selection: a method that works. Design Studies, 6(2), 91-106.
L. J. Ball, T. C. Ormerod, N. J. Morley, Spontaneous Analogizing in Engineering Design: A Comparative Analysis of Experts and Novices, Design Studies, 25(5), 2004, pp. 495±508.
Laing, S., & Masoodian, M. (2015). A study of the role of visual information in supporting ideation in graphic design. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(6), 1199-1211.
Laing, S., & Masoodian, M. (2016). A study of the influence of visual imagery on graphic design ideation. Design Studies, 45, 187-209.
Laseau, P. (2000). Graphic thinking for architects and designers. John Wiley & Sons.
Linsey, J. S., Laux, J., Clauss, E. F., Wood, K. L., & Markman, A. B. (2007). Effects of analogous product representation on design-by-analogy. In DS 42: Proceedings of ICED 2007, the 16th International Conference on Engineering Design, Paris, France, 28.-31.07. 2007 (pp. 337-338).
López-Pérez, M. V., Pérez-López, M. C., & Rodríguez-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: Students’ perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers & education, 56(3), 818-826.
Maher, A. (2004). Learning outcomes in higher education: Implications for curriculum design and student learning. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 3(2), 46-54.
McKim, R. H. (1980). Thinking visually: A strategy manual for problem solving. (No Title).
Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). How the group affects the mind: A cognitive model of idea generation in groups. Personality and social psychology review, 10(3), 186- 213.
Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. F. (2002). Cognitive stimulation and interference in groups: Exposure effects in an idea generation task. Journal of experimental social psychology, 38(6), 535-544.
Oman, S. K., Tumer, I. Y., Wood, K., & Seepersad, C. (2013). A comparison of creativity and innovation metrics and sample validation through in-class design projects. Research in engineering design, 24, 65-92.
Parnes, S. J. (1987). The creative studies project. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers in creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 156-188). Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
Pask, G. (1969). Strategy, competence and conversation as determinants of learning. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 6(4), 250-267.
Patalano, A. L., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). Memory for impasses during problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 22(2), 234-242.
Purcell, A. T., & Gero, J. S. (1991). The effects of examples on the results of a design activity. In Artificial Intelligence in Design'91 (pp. 525-542). Butterworth- Heinemann.
Purcell, A. T., & Gero, J. S. (1996). Design and other types of fixation. Design studies, 17(4), 363-383.
Reimlinger, B., Lohmeyer, Q., Moryson, R., & Meboldt, M. (2019). A comparison of how novice and experienced design engineers benefit from design guidelines. Design Studies, 63, 204-223.
Robinson, J. W. (1986). Design as exploration. Design studies, 7(2), 67-79.
Rohaniyah, J. (2017). Integrating learning style and multiple intelligences in teaching and learning process. Wacana Didaktika, 5(01), 19-27.
Roozenburg, N. (1993) On the Pattern of Reasoning in Innovative Design, Design Studies, 14 No 1, pp. 4-18
Sarkar, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (2008). The effect of representation of triggers on design outcomes. Ai Edam, 22(2), 101-116.
Schunn, C. D., & Dunbar, K. (1996). Priming, analogy, and awareness in complex reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 24(3), 271-284.
Seifert, C. M., Meyer, D. E., Davidson, N., Patalano, A. L., & Yaniv, I. (1994). Demystification of cognitive insight: Opportunistic assimilation and the prepared- mind hypothesis.
Severiens, S. E., & Ten Dam, G. T. (1994). Gender differences in learning styles: A narrative review and quantitative meta-analysis. Higher education, 27(4), 487-501.
Shah, J. J., Smith, S. M., & Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2003). Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design studies, 24(2), 111-134.
Siangliulue, P., Chan, J., Gajos, K. Z., & Dow, S. P. (2015, June). Providing timely examples improves the quantity and quality of generated ideas. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition (pp. 83-92).
Silver, H., Strong, R., & Perini, M. (1997). Integrating learning styles and multiple intelligences. Educational leadership, 55(1), 22-27.
Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. MIT press.
Sio, U. N., Kotovsky, K., & Cagan, J. (2015). Fixation or inspiration? A meta-analytic review of the role of examples on design processes. Design Studies, 39, 70-99.
Stojanova, B. (2010). Development of creativity as a basic task of the modern educational system. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3395-3400.
Suwa, M., Purcell, T., & Gero, J. (1998). Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designers' cognitive actions. Design studies, 19(4), 455-483.
Tonkinwise, C. (2011). A taste for practices: Unrepressing style in design thinking. Design studies, 32(6), 533-545.
Tseng, I., Moss, J., Cagan, J., & Kotovsky, K. (2008). The role of timing and analogical similarity in the stimulation of idea generation in design. Design studies, 29(3), 203-221.
Van der Lugt, R. (2000). Developing a graphic tool for creative problem solving in design groups. Design studies, 21(5), 505-522.
Vernon, P. E. (1989). The nature-nurture problem in creativity. In Handbook of creativity (pp. 93-110). Boston, MA: Springer US.
Vidal, R., Mulet, E., & Gómez-Senent, E. (2004). Effectiveness of the means of expression in creative problem-solving in design groups. Journal of Engineering Design, 15(3), 285-298.
Visser, W. (2010). Simon: Design as a problem-solving activity. Collection, (2), 11-16.
Vuong, Q. H., Napier, N. K., & Samson, D. (2014). Relationship between innovations, capital expenditures and post-M&A performance: evidence from Vietnam, 2005- 2012. The IUP Journal of Business Strategy, 11(1), 34-41.
Ward, T. B. (2007). Creative cognition as a window on creativity. Methods, 42(1), 28-37.
Wilson, B. G., & Myers, K. M. (2000). Situated cognition in theoretical and practical context. Theoretical foundations of learning environments, 57-88.
Yilmaz, S., & Daly, S. R. (2016). Feedback in concept development: Comparing design disciplines. Design Studies, 45, 137-158.