過去研究指出專家與生手是具有相當大的差異存在，包括：搜尋策略、認知行為、策略知識等等。另外，有研究指出創造力發生在形成專家設計師過程中的前期階段(Gardner, 1993)，也就是說，在一個設計流程中，創造力會發生在傾向生手的設計師身上。然而，Herbert A. Simon (1966, 1975, 1999)指出要成為一位設計專家後，才可能成為有創造力的設計師。因此本研究將進行對於設計思考的過程，比較設計師生手與專家的差異現象。

然而，至今並沒有研究針對設計師生手與專家的差異做全面性的探討，因此，本論文的主要目標是要比較生手設計師與專家設計師的設計知識、設計過程及策略和草圖行為。研究方法採用口語分析法，以設計領域的生手及專家為受測對象，利用智力結構理論，分析兩者在設計思考的過程中的差異現象及其原因。

本研究結果指出：設計知識方面，專家會因為專家知識而自我設限，生手則不會；設計過程及策略方面，專家會有固定的發展構想模式和定型效應，而生手會變換思考焦點，因此較具有創造力；草圖行為方面，專家視草圖思考的媒介，生手則是依賴草圖思考。另外在創造力方面，最後結果是支持Gardner的論點，指出：生手設計師比專家更具有創造力的傾向。本研究結論可應用在設計教育，提供生手設計師成為一位專家設計師。

Previous studies indicated that differences existed between expert designers and novice designers such as searching strategy, cognitive behaviors, and strategy knowledge. Besides, other researches also pointed out that creativity would occur at preliminary stage in the process of becoming an expert (Gardner, 1993). That meant, in the design process, creativity would show a tendency to the novice. However, Herbert A. Simon (1966, 1975, 1999) considered that it is possible to be a creative designer after being an expert. Therefore, this study analyzed both of their tendency of creativity and the reasons for different phenomena by using design knowledge, design process and strategy, and sketching behaviors. The methodology would be protocol analysis. The subjects would be experts and novices in design domain.

The results suggest that: in design knowledge, experts had self-limitation due to professional knowledge while novices did not; in design process and strategy, experts had particular pattern of idea generation and fixation effect while novices tended to change thinking points; in sketching behaviors, experts considered sketches as media of thinking while novices relied on sketches. Additional, the final result supported Gardner’s argument (1993) which pointed out that the novices had more tendency of creativity than experts in the process of design thinking.

1.Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2.Anderson, J. R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and its implications: Worth Pub.
3.Baxter, M. (1995). Product Design : A practical guide to systematic methods of new product development: 六合出版社.
4.Chun-Heng, H. (2001). Some phenomena of problem decomposition strategy for design thinking: differences between novices and experts. Design Studies, 22(1), 27-45. doi: 10.1016/s0142-694x(99)00030-7
5.Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: New York: Harper Perennial.
6.Dorst, K., & Hansen, C. T. (2011). MODELING PARADOXES IN NOVICE AND EXPERT DESIGN.
7.Gardner, H. E. (1993). Creating Minds New York: Basic Books.
8.Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive science, 16(3), 395-429.
9.Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 123-143.
10.Guilford., J. P. (1968). Intelligence, creativity, and their educational implications: R. R. Knapp.
11.Howard-Jones, P. (1998). The variation of ideational productivity over short timescales and the influence of an instructional strategy to defocus attention.
12.Kavakli, M., & Gero, J. S. (2002). The structure of concurrent cognitive actions: A case study on novice and expert designers. Design Studies, 23(1), 25-40.
13.Kavakli, M., & Gero, J. S. (2003). Strategic knowledge differences between an expert and a novice designer. Human Behaviour in Design, Springer, 42-51.
14.Liu, Y. T. (1996). Is designing one search or two? A model of design thinking involving symbolism and connectionism. Design Studies, 17(4), 435-449.
15.Ömer, A. (1990). Necessary conditions for design expertise and creativity. Design Studies, 11(2), 107-113. doi: 10.1016/0142-694x(90)90025-8
16.Schmid, K. (1996). Making AI systems more creative: the IPC-model. Knowledge-Based Systems, 9(6), 385-397.
17.Schon, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Design Studies, 13(2), 135-156.
18.Simon, H. A. (1966). Scientific discovery and the psychology of problem solving. Mind and cosmos, 22-40.
19.Simon, H. A. (1974). How big is a chunk? Science, 183(4124), 482-488.
20.Simon, H. A. (1975). Style in design. Spatial Synthesis in Computer-Aided Building Design, 287-309.
21.Simon, H. A. (1999). The Sciences of the Artificial.
22.Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American psychologist, 51(7), 677.
23.Strzalecki, A. (2000). Creativity in Design: General Model and its Verification. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 64(2), 241-260.
24.Suwa, M., Gero, J., & Purcell, T. (2000). Unexpected discoveries and S-invention of design requirements: important vehicles for a design process. Design Studies, 21(6), 539-567.
25.Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design Studies, 18(4), 385-403.
26.岳曉東. (2011). 青少年創造力培養－－思考與研究: 城市大學
27.林榮邦. (1995). 建築設計中的創造力-設計思考過程中草圖角色之探討. 碩士, 國立交通大學, 新竹市.
28.戚樹誠, 李俊賢, 蔡華華, & 陳宇芬. (2002). 口語協定分析在決策上的應用. 商管科技期刊, 3(3), 57-69.
29.黃英修. (2005). 從專家、風格到創造力的形成過程之認知行為探討. 博士, 國立交通大學, 新竹市.