由激發想像力思維探索設計課程教學方式

Explore the Teaching Models for Design Studio by the Thinking Stimulation of Imagination

吳可久(Ko-Chiu Wu)；蘇于倫(Yu-Lun Su)；曹筱玥(Saiau-Yue Tsau)

設計教學 ； T型人才 ； 創造力 ； 跨領域教育 ； Design Teaching ； T Shaped Talent ； IERG ； Creativity ； Interdisciplinary Education

建築學報

83期（2013 / 03 / 28）

19 - 35

繁體中文

隨著時代變動與新資訊的網路科技發達，人類的價值與設計師角色也隨時代在改變。其中設計教育的重點目的是培植未來設計師，而其中想像力的培育是設計教育基礎中極重要的一環。然而，臺灣多年從日本工程教育轉化到空間（美感）教育及環境教育等，課程中尚未顧及想像力之發揮，而忽略想像力開發重要性。有鑑於此，本研究以臺北科技大學[創意設計學士班]為研究樣本，該班授課內容包含產品、建築與室內設計，並首創每班高中職生各半。研究中融入IERG教學理念，並以大自然為議題進行想像力設計課程教學。而研究結果顯示，不同領域刺激教學有效增加想像力的心像題材的豐富性，亦突顯出二種不同體系的知識訓練對於「想像力」在呈現方式上的落差及各自的強項，此部分資料對於技職體系的大學校院之設計學院，未來在培育設計人才之訓練方向與課程設計頗有助益。

As times change and internet technology advances, man's core content value and designer positions also change. The purpose of design education is to train future designers and developing their imagination is the most important part of the basic design education. However, many years ago Taiwan design education was based upon Japanese engineering education, thus, today the space, aesthetic education and environmental education curriculum has not stressed the importance of developing the student's imagination. Therefore, this study uses Taipei University of Technology-Department of Creative Design students for an example. The courses include product design, architecture and interior design and each class has fifty percent high school students and fifty percent vocational students. The design courses will be using the IERG teaching philosophy in this study, which uses natural topics to develop imagination. The outcome of the study shows that stimulation of different areas of teaching effectively increases the imagination. Teaching the same imagination method to the high school and vocational students, results in different outcomes for each student. Each Student group excels in different areas as a result of the IERG teaching. The results of this study for the technical and vocational education School of Design will be helpful in the future for the design direction and designing the curriculum.

1. 曹筱玥、林小慧(2012)。想像力量表之編製。教育科學研究期刊，57(4)，1-37。
   連結：
2. 梁朝雲、許育齡、劉育東、李元榮(2011)。促發想像之環境因素的評測工具─以跨域設計教育為例的初探性研究。設計學報，16(1)，65-82。
   連結：
3. Norman, D. (2010). Why Design Education Must Change. Core77 Design Magazine & Resource. Retrieved 10, 26, 2010 from http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/why_design_education_must_change_17993.asp.
4. Antonopoulou, A.(2011).Perspectives on learning in design & technology education story-making in designing and learning.Proceeding of the PATT25: CRIPT 8 Conference,London, UK:
5. Barrett, M.,Smigiel, H.(2003).Teaching for education and the imagination: Students' perceptions.Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Imagination and Education (IERG 2003),BC, CA:
6. Baynes, K.(2010).Models of change: The future of design education.Design and Technology Education: an International Journal,15(3),10-17.
7. Cahalan, A.(2011).The Future of Design Education.SA, AU:AGDA.
8. Coleman, N.(2010).The limits of professional architectural education.International Journal of Art & Design Education,29(2),200-212.
9. Downing, F.(1992).Conversations in imagery.Design Studies,13(3),291-319.
10. Eastman, C. M.(1999).Building Product Models: Computer Environments Supporting Design and Construction.FL, USA:CRC Press.
11. Egan, K.(2008).The Future of Education: Reimagining Our Schools from the Ground up.CT, USA:Yale University Press.
12. Gavin, K. G.(2010).Design of the curriculum for a second-cycle course in civil engineering in the context of the Bologna framework.European Journal of Engineering Education,35(2),175-185.
13. Guiford, J. P.(1967).The Nature of Human Intelligence.NY, USA:McGraw-Hill.
14. Hurlimann, A. C.(2009).Responding to environmental challenges: An initial assessment of higher education curricula needs by Australian planning professionals.Environmental Education Research,15(6),643-659.
15. Ieong, S. S. L.(2004).The power of imagination: Its role in students' participation in creating knowledge. Educating Imaginative Minds.Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Imagination and Education,BC, CA:
16. Jin, Y.,Chusilp, P.(2006).Study of mental iteration in different design situations.Design Studies,27(1),25-55.
17. Kelley, T.,Littman, J.(2005).The Ten Faces of Innovation: IDEO's Strategies for Defeating the Devil's Advocate & Driving Creativity throughout Your Organization.NY, USA:Currency/Doubleday.
18. Lai, I. C.,Chang, T. W.(2006).A distributed linking system for supporting idea association during the conceptual design stage.Design Studies,27(6),685-710.
19. Middleton, H.(2005).Creative thinking, values and design and technology education.International Journal of Technology and Design Education,15(1),61-71.
20. Petre, M.,Sharp, H.,Johnson, J.(2006).Complexity through combination: an account of knitwear design.Design Studies,27(2),183-222.
21. Squires, G.(2005).Art, science and the professions.Studies in Higher Education,30(2),127-136.
22. Thakur, A.(2009).Stepping into the 'real world': Architecture students' preparedness for professional practice.College Student Journal,43(3),1-22.
23. Vygotsky, L. S.(2004).Imagination and creativity in childhood.Journal of Russian and East European Psychology,42(1),7-97.
24. Walker, D.(1989).The open university publication number.Managing Design,791.
25. Warnock, M.(1976).Imagination.CA, USA:University of California Press.
26. Williams, F. E.(1980).Creativity Assessment Packet (CAP).NY, USA:D.O.K. Publishers.
27. 何明泉(2011)。設計的核心價值與核心能力。朝陽學報，16，31-44。
28. 周進洋(2010)。行政院國家科學委員會計畫報告行政院國家科學委員會計畫報告,台北市=Taipei:行政院國家科學委員會=National Science Council。
29. 林偉文(2011)。未來想像與創造力的培育─以芬蘭 Arkki 兒童與青少年建築學園為例。國民教育，51(3)，62-72。
30. 賴美辰(2011)。台北市=Taipei，國立台北教育大學=National Taipei University of Education。

1. 何曉琪,王佳琪(2021)。想像與現實的交織：設計領域想像－創造歷程之建構。教育科學研究期刊，66(4)，245-280。
2. 邵雲龍(2019)。視覺化程式融入運算思維之教材發展與評估。先進工程學刊，14(2)，103-110。
3. 王佳琪(2020)。科學想像力圖形測驗之驗證。教育心理學報，51(3)，341-367。
4. 楊棨棠,王佳琪(2019)。探討科學想像力融入國小自然科課程單元之成效：以「簡單力學－力與運動」單元為例。教育科學研究期刊，64(1)，213-240。