電腦輔助美容造型設計課程之教學評估

Course Evaluation of Computer-Aided Cosmetology and Styling

10.30105/JDS.200612.0005

黃宜純(Yi-Chun Huang)；詹慧珊(Hui-Shan Chan)

電腦輔助美容造型設計課程 ； 教學評估 ； computer-aided cosmetology and styling course ； teaching evaluation

設計學研究

9卷2期（2006 / 12 / 01）

79 - 100

繁體中文

本研究目的在探討電腦輔助美容造型設計課程之教學成效。透過文獻探討及問卷調查法，瞭解模擬成效、課程滿意度、才能增進度與實務應用等構面的學習情況。經由研究結果所得結論如下：1、影響教學成效因素包含：影像擷取及髮型效果、彩妝整體效果、課程內容、學習成效、專業知能、專業技能、實務知能、實務技能等八項因素。2、個人背景變項中「年齡層」較高、具學習興趣者，其模擬成效、課程滿意度、才能增進度愈高，應用程度也愈滿意。不同的工作職務及工作年資則無顯著差異。就本研究而言以「學習興趣」為各層面間的強度關連解釋變異量。3、經由相關分析顯示，模擬成效表現愈好、課程滿意度愈高，才能增進度也愈高；職場應用程度也愈佳，此研究結果與Kirkpatrick 的評估模式理論相符合。4、模擬成效、課程滿意度、才能增進度等構面能聯合預測應用程度77.1%的變異量。就個別變項的解釋量以「專業知能」層面的預測力最佳，其次為「影像擷取及髮型效果」層面。「模擬成效」對於「課程滿意度」、「才能增進度」及「應用程度」均有直接影響效果，而課程滿意度則需經由才能增進度，間接性的影響應用程度。

The purpose of this research is to evaluate the effectiveness of computer-aided course in cosmetology & styling course. Through the exploration in relevant literatures and Question & Answer survey, we get to understand the learning progress of students in area of simulation effectiveness, course satisfaction, talent improvement and practical application. And the research findings are as follows: 1. Eight factors influencing teaching effectiveness are: image taking and hair styling effect, overall make-up effect, course content, learning effectiveness, professional know-how, professional technique, hands-on know-how and hands-on technique. 2. Students in higher age group and interested in learning tend to respond more positively in simulation effect, course satisfaction and talent improvement, and with better practical application, while showing no marked difference in job description and seniority. In this research, 'learning interest' is used as the intensity link among all concerned parties to illustrate the quantity in variation. 3. As indicated by relevant analyses, better simulation effectiveness combined with course satisfaction leads to higher degree of talent improvement and better job market application, which is in line with Kirkpatrick evaluation theory modeling.4. Simulation effectiveness, course satisfaction and talent improvement combined could forecast 77.1% of variation quantity in the level of application. Individually, professional know-how demonstrates the best ability in forecasting, followed by image taking and hair styling effect. Simulation effectiveness could directly impact course satisfaction, talent improvement and level of application, whereas course satisfaction only has indirect impact on the level of application through the level of talent improvement.

1. 吳秉恩(2004)。企業人力資源管理定位與功能轉型。人力資源管理學報，3
   連結：
2. Baldwin, T. T.,J. K. Ford(1988).Transfer of Training: A Review and Directions for Future Research.Personnel Psychology,41(1)
3. Bangert-Drowns, R. L.,J. A. Kulik,C-L. C. Kulik(1985).Effectiveness of Computer-Based Education in Secondary Schools.J. of Computer-Based Instruction,12(3)
4. Burns, P. K.,W. C. Bozeman(1981).Computer-Assisted Instruction and Mathematics Achievement: Is There a Relationship?.Educational Technology,21(10)
5. Cohen, J.,P. Cohen(1988).Statistical Power Analysis for the Behaveioral Sciences.NJ:Eribaum.
6. Cohen, J.,P. Cohen(1983).Applied Regretssion/Correlateion Analysis for the Behavior Sciences,.NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Duschl, R.(1990).Restructuring Science Education: The Role of Theories and Their Importance.NY:Teacher College Press.
8. Goldstein, I. L.(1993).Training in Organization: Needs Development and Evaluation.NY:Pacific Galif Calif Pub.
9. Hicks, B.,D. Hyde(1973).Teaching about CAI.Journal of Teacher Education,24(3)
10. Kaiser, H. F.(1960).The Application of Electronic Computer to Factor Analysis.Educational and Psychological Measurement,20
11. Kirkpatrick, D. L.(1975).Evaluating Training Programs. American Society For Training and Development.Wisconsin:Madison.
12. Kirpatrick, D. L.(1994).Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels.San Francissco:Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
13. Kulik, J.,Bangent, R.,Williams, G.(1983).Effects of Computer-Based Teaching on Secondary School Students.Journal of Educational Psychology,75
14. Latham, G. P.,K. N. Wexley(1991).Developing and Training Human Resources in Organizations.NY:Harper Collins Publishers.
15. Merrill, P. F.,K. Hammons,B. R. Vincent,P. L. Reynolds,L. Christensen,M. N. Tolm(1995).Computers in Education.Mass:Needham Heights.
16. Rossi, P. H.,H. E. Freeman(1993).Evaluation: A Systematic Approach.CA:Newbury Park, Sage Publications..
17. Sipple. C. J.,R. J., Sipple(1980).Computer dictionary.NY:Howard W. Sams & Co. Inc.
18. Suchman, L. A.(1987).Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Computer Communication.NY:Cambridge University Press.
19. Van, S. D.,J., Kruzich(1994).Journal of Teaching in Social Work.NY:
20. 王立行(1992)。電腦輔助教學的理論與實務探討。資訊與教育，25
21. 余酈惠(2003)。國立高雄師範大學數學系。
22. 利亞蒨(2002)。網路輔助教學在國小數學學習領域學習成效、學習態度之影響研究。屏東師範學院國民教育研究所。
23. 吳定(2003)。公共政策辭典。台北:五南圖書出版公司。
24. 吳明隆(2000)。SPSS統計應用實務。台北:松崗電腦圖書資料股份有限公司。
25. 吳明隆、涂金堂(2006)。SPSS與統計應用分析。台北:五南圖書出版公司。
26. 吳盛金(2001)。國立中央大學。
27. 吳萬益(2005)。企業研究方法。台北:五南圖書出版公司。
28. 吳鐵雄(1983)。單變數變異數分析關係強度之估計及其在行為科學之應用。測驗年刊，30
29. 李國海(2002)。台中師範學院自然科學教育研究所。
30. 李隆盛(2000)。Kirkpatrick評鑑模式。人力培訓專刊
31. 林星秀(2000)。國立高雄師範大學數學研究所。
32. 林燕靖(1998)。高雄師範大學科學教育研究所。
33. 邱皓政(2000)。量化研究與統計分析。台北:五南圖書出版社。
34. 邱貴發(1994)。電腦輔助學習的理念與發展方向。教學科技與媒體，13
35. 洪榮昭、劉明洲(1996)。電腦輔助教學之設計原理與應用。台北:師大書苑。
36. 胡正源、林曉芳(2004)。企業研究方法。台北:鼎茂圖書出版股份有限公司。
37. 張逸婷(2002)。屏東師範學院數理教育研究所。
38. 陳忠志(1997)。電腦輔助教學設計模式－CAI課程軟體編製技術參考手冊。台北:教育部電子計算機中心。
39. 鄭志明(2003)。國立高雄師範大學數學系。

1. 洪惠娟、白玥淳(2013)。美容系學生電腦輔助造型設計課程學習滿意度之研究－以台南某科技大學為例。美容科技學刊，10(4)，5-20。
2. 謝文英,劉邦棟,柯美華(2020)。整體造型設計課程學習滿意度之研究－以南部某專科學校為例。美容科技學刊，17(1)，47-80。
3. 徐秀惠,卓維真,吳志富,王士賓(2020)。彩妝設計圖以電腦繪圖呈現繪畫技能之研究。美容科技學刊，17(2)，23-47。
4. (2024)。電腦輔助彩妝設計之教學模式研究。設計學報，29(2)，25-47。