成功大學博碩士論文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	韓學和 Han, Hsueh-Ho
論文名稱：	造型設計課程講義與實際演練之教學反應調查 The appraisal of lecture and practical exercise in Form Design course
指導教授：	周君瑞 Chou, Chun-Juei
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	規劃與設計學院 - 工業設計學系 Department of Industrial Design
論文出版年：	2016
畢業學年度：	104
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	97
中文關鍵詞：	玩中學、從做中學、體驗式學習、造型設計教育、新式課程
外文關鍵詞：	learning by playing, learning by doing, experiential learning, Form Design education, new curriculum
相關次數：	點閱：99 下載：3
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

設計的答案有無限種可能，故其教學方式應為更多元、更有變化的，本研究想針對「造形設計」課程的每週授課主題與內容，提出可以讓學生實際演練的新式授課內容與教材，並且調查講義課與實際演練的教學反應。筆者將實際參與課程，將課程中的優缺點轉化為活動、競賽、道具與教材等實際演練部分，並應用於「造形設計」課程中，最後分析師生於講義課程與實際演練的反應與回饋，並透過問卷與訪談來得知實際演練之教學成效。本研究希望透過新式教材，使學生對課程更有興趣並主動學習，也使教師上課更輕鬆、更有效率，最後完成是否實際演練適合應用於造型設計課的調查。
本研究根據分析結果，發現特定形式的教材對學生有特別的吸引力，並提出幾項講義課與實際演練之間的搭配，什麼類型的主題適合搭配競賽活動、甚麼類型的適合實際教材，提供相關教學者，在設計課堂的實際演練時，能針對需要的課程主題，使用適合的實際演練。

There is infinite possibility of answers of design, so the teaching methods should be more diverse, more variation. This study focus on weekly themes and contents of the "Form Design” course, and that can let students practice the new teaching contents and teaching materials, surveying responses between teaching lecture courses and practical exercise. We will participate in the course, and let the advantages and disadvantages of the course be transferred to activities, competitions, props and practical exercise. Then we will apply to the "Form Design" course, finally analysis the response and feedback of teachers and students, and through questionnaires and interviews to know the effectiveness of practical exercise. This research hopes through new teaching materials, make students have more interest and active learning, and teachers also make easier and more efficient. Ultimately, we will finish the survey of whether the practical exercise fit the design course.
According to the results of the analysis in this study, we find that some textbooks of particular forms for students have special attraction, and put forward several collocation between lecture and practical exercises. What type of theme match contest, what type suitable for the practical exercise, providing relevant teaching who, in the classroom design of practical exercise, can according to the need of subject, the use of suitable for the actual exercise.

摘要 ---- ii 
SUMMARY ---- iii 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ---- iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ---- v 
LIST OF TABLES ---- ix 
LIST OF FIGURES ---- x 
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ---- 1 
1 General Background Information ---- 1 
1.1 Today's Teaching Methods Still Follow Traditional Practices ---- 1 
1.2 The Answer of Design Have Unlimited Possibilities ---- 2 
1.3 Students easily be disturbed by Foreign Objects in the Classroom ---- 2 
2 General Motivation Information ---- 3 
2.1 The Passive Learning Leads to Low Efficiency of Learning ---- 3 
2.2 Increase Good Teacher-Student Interaction through Activities and Fun ---- 4 
3 Research Purpose ---- 4 
3.1 Proposed Content and Teaching Practical Exercises ---- 4 
3.2 Comparison of the Effectiveness of Teaching and Learning ---- 5 
4 Limitations of the Study ---- 5 
4.1 The Teachers and Students as Subjects in Form Design Course ---- 5 
4.2 Reservation Form and Content of Lecture Courses ---- 5 
4.3 Learning Through Practical Exercises ---- 6 
4.4 Evaluation Methods for Learning ---- 6 
5 Value of Research ---- 7 
5.1 Make Students to Learn by Initiative ---- 7 
5.2 Make Teachers Teaching more effectively ---- 7 
5.3 Create Template of "Form Design" Course ---- 8 
CHAPTER 2 CITATION AND REFERENCE ---- 9 
1 The Content of "Form Design" Course ---- 9 
1.1 Drawing ---- 10
1.2 Physical Materials ---- 10 
1.3 The Knowledge Understanding ---- 10 
2 The Problem of Current Teachings ---- 11 
2.1 The Status of non-Design Courses ---- 11 
2.2 The Status of Design Course ---- 11 
2.3 Difficulties and Weaknesses, Challenges ---- 12 
2.4 The Effect of Teaching ---- 12 
3 Teaching Mode of Form Design ---- 13 
3.1 Traditional Design Course ---- 13 
3.2 The Weaknesses of Course ---- 14 
3.3 Advantages of Practical Exercise ---- 14 
3.4 The New Teaching Method of Form Design ---- 15 
4 New Teaching Methods ---- 17 
4.1 The Defects of Digital Teaching ---- 17 
4.2 Attractive Courses ---- 18 
4.3 Learning by Doing ---- 19 
4.4 Experiential Learning ---- 20 
4.5 Learning through Playing ---- 21 
4.6 Trends for the Future Teaching ---- 23 
5 Research Methods ---- 23 
5.1 Observation, Questionnaires and Interviews ---- 23 
5.2 Research of Group Learning ---- 25 
5.3 Research of Instructional Evaluation ---- 27 
CHAPTER 3 ACTIVITY AND MATERIALS FOR PRACTICAL EXERCISE ---- 29 
1 Understanding the Courses ---- 29 
1.1 Observation ---- 29 
1.2 Collecting Problem ---- 30 
2 To Create the Content of Practical Exercises ---- 31 
2.1 Physical Teaching Materials ---- 31 
2.2 Activity ---- 33 
CHAPTER 4 TEACHING, IMPLEMENT AND MEASURING ---- 35 
1 Setting Courses and Subjects for Experiment ---- 35 
2 Process of Practical Exercise ---- 35
2.1 Teaching Lecture Content ---- 36 
2.2 Illustrate and Demonstrate the Practical Exercise and Homework ---- 36 
2.3 Practical Exercising ---- 37 
2.4 Finish the Homework ---- 38 
3 The Appraisal of Lecture and Practical Exercises ---- 38 
3.1 Questionnaire Survey ---- 38 
3.2 Interview ---- 39 
3.3 Instructional Evaluation ---- 39 
CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ---- 43 
1 Results of the Questionnaire ---- 43 
1.1 Analysis of the Pretest and Posttest of Whole Semester ---- 43 
1.2 Analysis the Pretest and Posttest of Each Week ---- 44 
1.3 Comparison the Same Title of Whole Semester ---- 46 
1.4 Comparison of Pretest and Posttest Every Week ---- 49 
2 Discuss the Results of the Interviews ---- 52 
2.1 The Practical Application of the Theory ---- 52 
2.2 Learning by Doing ---- 52 
2.3 The Sense of Participation and Interest ---- 54 
2.4 Understanding Lecture Contents Fully ---- 55 
2.5 The Theme of Most Profound Impression ---- 55 
2.6 Other Opinions ---- 58 
3 Result of Instructional Evaluation ---- 58 
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ---- 61 
1 Survey Results ---- 61 
1.1 Improving the Teaching Effect ---- 61 
1.2 Subjects without Significant Differences ---- 63 
1.3 Combinations of Practical Exercises ---- 64 
2 Discussion ---- 65 
2.1 Combination of the Contents in Practical Exercises ---- 65 
2.2 Correspondence between Lectures and Practical Exercises ---- 66 
2.3 Effects of Physical Teaching Materials ---- 66 
2.4 Effects of Group Discussion ---- 67 
2.5 Limitations of the Study ---- 67
3 Suggestions for Follow-up Studies ---- 68 
3.1 Types of the Course Subjects ---- 68 
3.2 Types of Teaching Materials ---- 69 
3.3 Combination of Subjects and Teaching Materials ---- 70 
3.4 Outlook ---- 71 
REFERENCES ---- 72 
Analyze Data 1 ---- 78 
A.1 Week 1. The results of seven same subject to t-test (Form Rules) ---- 78 
A.2 Week 2. The results of seven same subject to t-test (User Engagement I) ---- 79 
A.3 Week 3. The results of seven same subject to t-test (User Engagement II) ---- 80 
A.4 Week 4. The results of seven same subject to t-test (Future Design) ---- 81 
A.5 Week 5. The results of seven same subject to t-test (Product Aesthetics) ---- 82 
A.6 Week 6. The results of seven same subject to t-test (Bionic Design) ---- 83 
A.7 Week 7. The results of seven same subject to t-test (Form Restrictions) ---- 84 
A.8 Week 8. The results of seven same subject to t-test (Kansei design) ---- 85 
A.9 Week 9. The results of seven same subject to t-test (Image scale) ---- 86 
Analyze Data 2 ---- 87 
A.1 Week 1. The results of each subject to t-test (Form Rules) ---- 87 
A.2 Week 2. The results of each subject to t-test (User Engagement I) ---- 88 
A.3 Week 3. The results of each subject to t-test (User Engagement II) ---- 89 
A.4 Week 4. The results of each subject to t-test (Future Design) ---- 90 
A.5 Week 5. The results of each subject to t-test (Product Aesthetics) ---- 91 
A.6 Week 6. The results of each subject to t-test (Bionic Design) ---- 92 
A.7 Week 7. The results of each subject to t-test (Form Restrictions) ---- 93 
A.8 Week 8. The results of each subject to t-test (Kansei design) ---- 94 
A.9 Week 9. The results of each subject to t-test (Image scale) ---- 95 
Instructional Evaluation ---- 96 
C.1 This Semester ---- 96 
C.2 Last Semester ---- 97

                                    

Iinternal References
百度百科（民104）。Workshop【部落格文字資料】。取自：http://baike.baidu.com/item/workshop。[Baidu. (2015). Workshop. Retrieved from http://baike.baidu.com/item/workshop]
李澎霖（民99）。浅谈高等院校设计专业基础教学。艺术教育，8，122。[Li, P. L. (2010). On the basis of professional colleges and universities teaching design. art education, 8, 122.]
周君瑞（民90）。複合感性意象之塑造-以造形特徵為基礎（碩士論文）。取自國立成功大學碩博士論文系統，6-36、45-80。[Chou, C. J. (2001). Images of complex emotional shape - to shape-based feature. National Cheng Kung University Institute of Industrial Design. Thesis, 6-36, 45-80.]
吳禹叡（民102）。造形限制介定法（碩士論文）。取自國立成功大學碩博士論文系統，1-65。[Wu, Y. R. (2013). Shape defined limits law. Department of Industrial Design Kung University master's degree thesis, 1-65.]
吳清山、林天祐（民94）。教育新辭書。高等教育文化事業有限公司，184-189。[Wu, C. S., & Lin, T. Y. (2005). Education New dictionaries. Education and culture Limited, 184-189.]
吳慧君（民90）。內隱知識擷取方法在知識擷取廣度及深度知比較研究-以碩士論文寫作為例(碩士論文)。取自國立成功大學碩博士論文系統，1- 115。[Wu, H. j. (2001). Implicit knowledge capture method of Comparison of research in breadth and depth of knowledge known to fetch - A Case Study of Master's Thesis. National Taiwan University of Science and Technology Business Management Master's thesis, 1-115.]
郭生玉（民79）。心理與教育測驗。臺北：精華，285-290。[Guo, S. Y. (1990). Psychological and Educational Testing. Taipei: essence, 285-290.]
張楊（民93）。論課程評價中的量化評價與質性評價。寧波大學學報：教育科學版，26(3)，20-22。[Zhang, Y. (2004). Curriculum evaluation of quantitative evaluation and qualitative evaluation. Ningbo University: Education Science, 26 (3), 20-22.]
硬塞的網路趨勢觀察（民103）。CS50：一堂超過800個哈佛學生選修的「硬課」，魅力何在？【部落格文字資料】。取自：http://www.inside.com.tw/2014/12/17/harvard-cs50。[Cram web trends observed. (2014). CS50: a more than 800 Harvard students to take a "hard lesson", the attraction? [Blogs] text information. Retrieved from http: //www.inside.com.tw/2014/12/17/harvard-cs50.]
劉恭甫（民103）。第一次設計工作坊就上手【部落格文字資料】。取自：
http://jackyliuworld.blogspot.tw/2014/02/workshop_16.html。[Liu, K. F. (2014). The first design workshop on writing data to use. [Blogs] text information. Retrieved from http://jackyliuworld.blogspot.tw/2014/02/workshop_16.html.]
Foreign References
Alsagoff, Z. A. (2013). 16 Learning Trends, We Simply CAN'T Ignore. October 18, 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.slideshare.net/zaid/16-learning-trends-we-simply-cant-ignore
Burgess, R. (1989). Field Research Sourcebook and Field Manual, London: Unwin Hyman.
Chan, C. S. (2000). Can style be measured? Design studies, 21(3), 277-291.
Chou, C. J. (2004). Three heuristic approaches for predicting future lifestyles. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON KANSEI ENGINEERING AND EMOTION RESEARCH
Chou, C. J. (2009). User engagement---providing additional interaction and meaning with products. Illinois Institute of Technology.
Canadian Council on Learning. (2006). Lessons in learning
Children Schools and Families. (2009). Learning, Playing and Interacting Good practice in the Early Years Foundation Stage
Chen, K., & Owen, C. L. (1997). Form language and style description. Design studies, 18(3), 249-274.
Carin, A., Wicker, L., & McKee, D. (1998). Learning by Doing.
Douglas, J. D. (1976). Investigative social research: Individual and team field research. Beverly Hills: Sage.
DiCicco, B. B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical education, 40(4), 314-321.
Dilworth, D. R., & Boshyk, D. Y. (2010). Action learning and its applications. Palgrave Macmillan.
Dally, J. W., & Zhang, G. M. (1993). A freshman engineering design course. Journal of Engineering Education, 82(2), 83-91.
Franklin, B. (2013). Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2003). Learning by doing. Chemical engineering education, 37(4), 282-309.
Fischer, T., & Herr, C. M. (2001). Teaching generative design. In 2001): Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Generative Art.
Gault, R. H. (1907). A history of the questionnaire method of research in psychology. The Pedagogical Seminary, 14(3), 366-383.
Green, L. N., & Bonollo, E. (2002). The development of a suite of design methods appropriate for teaching product design. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 6(1).
Hanushek, E. A. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of economic literature, 1141-1177.
Harvard University. (2015). Retrived from: http://www.seas.harvard.edu/cooking
Harlen, W., & James, M. (1997). Assessment and learning: differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education, 4(3), 365-379.
Kiili, K. (2005). Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model. The Internet and higher education, 8(1), 13-24.
Kalliala, M. (2005). Play Culture in a changing world. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Kagan, S. (2012). Death. Yale University Press.
Klemm, W. R. (2007). Computer slide shows: A trap for bad teaching. College Teaching, 55(3), 121-124.
Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles, 1, 227-247.
Lopate, P. (1975). Learning by Doing. In Notes from Workshop Center for Open Education.
Lichtenstein, C. (1994). Streamlined: a metaphor for progress: the esthetics of minimized drag. Distributed Art Pub Inc.
Litosseliti, L. (2003). Using focus groups in research. A&C Black.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of psychology.
Lewalski, Z. M. (1988). Product esthetics: an interpretation for designers, Design & Development Engineering Press, Carson. City, NV.
Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual review of sociology, 129-152.
Mock, K. (2004). Teaching with Tablet PC's. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 20(2), 17-27.
Montessori, M. (2014). What are phonograms and how they are taught to children? October 20, 2015. Retrieved from: https://themontessorian.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/what-are-phonograms-and-how-they-are-taught-to-children/
The University of Michigan web. (2015). October 18, 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.crlt.umich.edu/resources/evaluation-teaching/methods
Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. (1993). The use of students’ evaluations and an individually structured intervention to enhance university teaching effectiveness. American educational research journal, 30(1), 217-251.
Nicol, D., & Pilling, S. (2005). Changing architectural education: Towards a new professionalism. Taylor & Francis.
Oxman, R. (2004). Think-maps: teaching design thinking in design education. Design studies, 25(1), 63-91.
Pupo, R., Pinheiro, E., Mendes, G., Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K., & Celani, G. (2007). A design teaching method using shape grammars. In Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Graphics Engineering for Arts and Design (pp. 1-10).
Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 247-252.
Revans, R. W. (1980). Action learning: New techniques for management. Blond and Briggs Ltd.
Ryback, D., & Sanders, J. J. (1980). Humanistic versus Traditional Teaching Styles and Student Satisfaction. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 20(1), 87-90.
Smulders, F. E. (2011). Get wet! Teaching innovation theories through experiential learning. Journal of Design Research, 9(2), 168-184.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation.
Staff. (1995–2012). International Center for Alcohol Policies - Analysis. Balance. Partnership. International Center for Alcohol Policies. Retrieved 13 May2012.
Squires, J., Faulkner, J., & Hite, C. (2009). Do the math: Course redesign's impact on learning and scheduling. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33(11), 883-886.
Ternaux, E., Ternaux, M., & Ternaux, J. P. (2012). Industry of Nature: Another Approach to Ecology. Frame Publishers.
Tjalve, E. (1979). A short course in industrial design. A Study on the Gender differences in preferences of the steering wheel form, 83.
Upadhye, S. N., Shaikh, S. M., & Yalsangikar, T. B. (2013, February). New Teaching Method To Teach Projection & Development Of Solids. In International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology (Vol. 2, No. 2 (February-2013)). ESRSA Publications.
Von Hippel, E., & Tyre, M. J. (1995). How learning by doing is done: problem identification in novel process equipment. Research Policy, 24(1), 1-12.
Wenglinsky, H. (2002). The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education policy analysis archives, 10, 12.
Welch, M. (1998). Students' use of three-dimensional modelling while designing and making a solution to a technological problem. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(3), 241-260.
Wake, W. K. (2000). Design paradigms: a sourcebook for creative visualization. John Wiley & Sons.
Wikipedia. Experiential learning. October 20, 2015. Retrived from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiential_learning#cite_note-11
Wood, K. L., Jensen, D., Bezdek, J., & Otto, K. N. (2001). Reverse engineering and redesign: Courses to incrementally and systematically teach design. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(3), 363-374.
Wilson, B. C., & Shrock, S. (2001, February). Contributing to success in an introductory computer science course: a study of twelve factors. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 184-188). ACM.

校內：立即公開
校外：立即公開

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文