意識型態概念對師生互動之影響：工業設計教育知識內涵之批判與建構

The Impact of Ideology on the Interaction between Tutors and Student: A Critic and Construction of Industrial Design Education Knowledge

10.30105/JDS.201412_17(2).0004

鄭永熏(Yung-Hsun Cheng)

設計知識 ； 意識型態 ； 文化霸權 ； 工業設計教育 ； Design Knowledge ； Ideology ； Hegemony ； Industrial Design Education

設計學研究

17卷2期（2014 / 12 / 01）

67 - 95

繁體中文

本研究的目的，主要是在瞭解意識型態概念對工業設計教育中師生間互動的影響，特別是針對設計教育知識的內涵進行解構與批判。具體而言，研究範圍在強他對潛在課程的研究，以知識為介面探討其內容與意識型態和權力運作間的互動。研究步驟依據主題展開文獻探討，確立研究問題後，進行教學場域觀察訪談與焦點團體訪談，以質性軟體對研究資料進行解構與分析。提出四點結論：1.教師教學方式與意識型態類型確實對部分學生學習產生影響；但少數學生也有因應之道，減低意識型態的衝擊，例如，尋求其他老師協助：2.教師掌控價值觀決定的程度越高，學生的學習越被動，創新知識的獲得越困難，教師的教學負擔也越大；3.價值思想體系就像一個知識框架，獲得的方法與途徑各不相同，建立價值思想體系有助於學生追求創新知識，教育工作者不宜將自身價值思想傳強加在學習者，使學生被知識框架套住，而是要成為學生價值體系建構的促進者，4.教師特質與背景對知識的批判與重建具有重大影響，吊詭的是設計知識，有部份不是以科學的方法制定，而是以背景、聲望、職位與權力來決定。

This paper explores the potential influence of ideology on the education of industrial design in Taiwan and focuses particularly on the interaction between tutors and students. Through a series of literature review and discussion, critical theory was utilized in the study to analyse and determine the information acquired during the field observation, individual interviews and focus group interviews. Four conclusions were derived, which include: I. Teaching style and teacher's ideology will have substantial impact on the way how certain students learn. However, notwithstanding the contrary, some students will come up with their own strategy to reduce the influence from their teachers' ideology, such as seeking assistances from other teachers. 2. The higher the degree of values control from teachers, the more passive the student will be in their learning. As a result, it will become more difficult for student to obtain innovative knowledge, thereby put more burdens on teachers. 3. Value system of one's thinking process is like a knowledge domain. There are different strategy and process in obtaining the desire knowledge. Establishing student's value system of thought is crucial as it will benefit their quest for innovative knowledge. It is important to know that teachers should not impose their own system of thought on students as it will limit their thinking process. Instead, teacher should play the role of a facilitator to enable student to establish their own independent system of thought. 4. The background and character of a teacher can play an important role when comes to critique or establish certain knowledge. Therefore, the decision of partial design knowledge is not always by rigorous science method but can be by the background, reputation, position and authority of teachers.

1. 王雅玄(2005)。社會領域教科書的批判論述分析：方法論的重建。教育研究集刊，51(2)，67-97。
   連結：
2. 米建國(2008)。評論：Richard Fumerton知識論。東吳哲學學報，17，107-118。
   連結：
3. 鄭永熏(2003)。文化霸權（優勢）運作對工業設計教育核心課程中師生教學互動影響之研究。設計學報，8(2)，21-37。
   連結：
4. Peca, K. (2000), Critical Educational Administration: Research, Theory, and Practice, ERIC: ED 455 564.
5. 教育部(2014)，〈102 學年度大學校院一覽表) ， 網址: http://ulist.moe.gov.tw/Home/UniversityList (上網日期: September 18, 2014)
6. (1985).The Aesthetic in Education.
7. (2009).International Encyclopaedia of Human Geography.
8. ATLAS.ti (2013)，〈質性分析軟體〉，網址: http://twnfi.com/?191,atlas,ti (上網日期: July 18, 2013)
9. Atlas.ti (2010), 'Software Homepage' , website: http://www.atlasti.com (accessed: August 29, 2013).
10. Adams, R. S.(2011).Being a professional: Three lenses into design thinking, acting, and being.Design Studies,32(6),588-607.
11. Afacan, Y.,Demirkan, H.(2011).An ontology-based universal design knowledge support system.Knowledge-Based Systems,24,530-541.
12. Aken, J. E. V.(2005).Valid knowledge for the professional design of large and complex design processes.Design Studies,26(4),379-404.
13. BERNARD, A.(Ed.),TICHKIEWITCH, S.(Ed.)(2008).Methods and Tools for Effective Knowledge Life-Cycle-Management.Berlin:Springer.
14. Bjögvinsson, E.,Ehn, P.,Hillgren, P. A.(2012).Design things and design thinking: Contemporary participatory design challenges.Design Issues,28(3),101-116.
15. Chandrasegaran, S.K.,Ramani, K.,Sriram, R.D.,Horvath, I.,Bernard, A.,Harik, R.F.(2013).The evolution, challenges, and future of knowledge representation in product design systems.Computer-Aided Design,45(2),204-228.
16. Findeli, A.(2001).Rethinking design education for the 21st Century: Theoretical, methodological, and ethical discussion.Design Issues,17(1),5-17.
17. Friedman, K.(2000).Creating design knowledge: From research into practice.IDATER 2000,Loughborough:
18. Hsiao, H.C.,Cheng, Y.S.(2006).The impact of ideology on the interaction between tutors and students in the education of industrial design: A case study in Taiwan.The International Journal of Educational Development,26(1),6-23.
19. KWANSAH-AIDOO(Ed.)(2005).Topical Issues in Communications and Media Research.NY:Nova Science.
20. Love, T.(2000).New roles for design education in university settings.Re-Inventing Design Education in the University,Perth:
21. Luck, R.(2003).Dialogue in participatory design.Design Studies,24(6),523-535.
22. McCarthy, E. D.(1996).Knowledge as Culture: The New Sociology of Knowledge.New York:Routeledge.
23. Neuman, W.L.(2003).Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.Boston:Allyn and Bacon.
24. Newton, S.(2003).Designing as disclosure.Design Studies,25(1),93-109.
25. NORMAN, E.W. L.(Ed.),ROBERTS, P. H.(Ed.)(2001).Design and Technology Educational Research and Development: The Emerging International Research Agenda.Loughborough:Department of Design and Technology, Loughborough University.
26. Oh, Y.,Ishizaki, S.,Gross, M. D.,Ellen, Y.L.(2013).A theoretical framework of design critiquing in architecture studios.Design Studies,34(3),302-325.
27. Phillips, K. R.,Miranda, M.,Shin, J.(2009).Pedagogical content knowledge and industrial design education.The Journal of Technology Studies,35(2),48-49.
28. Polanyi, M.(1966).The Tacit Dimension.London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
29. Ramirez, M.(2012).Ethics and social responsibility: Integration within industrial design education in Oceania Ethics and social responsibility.DRS 2012,Bangkok, Thailand:
30. Rezgui, Y.,Boddy, S.,Wetherill, M.,Cooper, G.(2011).Past, present and future of information and knowledge sharing in the construction industry: Towards semantic service-based e-construction.Computer-Aided Design,43(5),502-515.
31. Rust, C.(2004).Design Enquiry: Tacit knowledge and invention in science.Design Issues,20(4),76-85.
32. Smith, B.K.(2003).The Ideology of Education: The Commonwealth, the Market and American Schools.Albany:State University of New York Press.
33. Teixeira , C.(2010).The entrepreneurial design curriculum: Design-based learning for knowledge-based economies.Design Studies,31(1),416.
34. Uluoğlu, B.(2000).Design knowledge communicated in studio critiques.Design Studies,21(1),33-58.
35. Ward, A.(1990).Ideology, culture and the design studio.Design Studies,11(1),10-16.
36. Zakus, D.H.,Cruise, D.,Edwards, A.(2007).Critical and ethical thinking in sport management: Philosophical rationales and examples of methods.Sport Management Review,10,133-158.
37. 王文科譯、王智弘譯、Vaughn, S.、Schumm, J. S.、Jeanne, S.(1999)。焦點團體訪談：教育與心理學適用。台北:五南。
38. 王文科、王智弘(2005)。教育研究方法。臺北:五南。
39. 王佳煌譯、潘中道譯、Neuman, W. L.(2000)。當代社會研究法規。台北:學富。
40. 王受之(1997)。世界現代設計。臺北:藝術家出版社。
41. 吳根明(1988)。批判理論與教育。臺北:師大。
42. 林崇宏(2004)。設計概論。臺北:全華圖。
43. 林銘煌(2004)。工業設計思潮。臺北:全華。
44. 張明貴(2005)。意識型態與當代政治。臺北:五南。
45. 張明貴譯、Mannheim, K.(2005)。意識型態與烏托邦。臺北:桂冠。
46. 張建成(2002)。批判的教育社會學研究。臺北:學富。
47. 陳伯璋(1985)。潛在課程研究。臺北:師大。
48. 陳伯璋(1988)。意識型態與教育。臺北:師大。
49. 黃柏叡譯、廖貞智譯、Wink, J.(2000)。批判教育學：來自真實世界的記錄。臺北:巨流。
50. 楊深坑(1997)。溝通理性．生命情懷與教育過程：哈伯瑪斯的溝通理性與教育。臺北:師大。
51. 楊裕富(1997)。設計藝術史學與理論。臺北:田園城市。
52. 楊裕富(1998)。設計的文化基礎：設計．符號．溝通。臺北:田園城市。
53. 楊裕富(1998)。空間設計概念與方法。臺北:田園城市。
54. 歐素汝譯、Stewart, D.W.、Shamdasani, P. N.(2000)。焦點團體：理論與實務。台北:揚智。
55. 蔡宜剛譯、Hebdige, D.(2005)。風格的意義。臺北:巨流。
56. 鄭世仁(2000)。教育社會學導論。臺北:五南。
57. 盧永毅(1997)。工業設計史。臺北:田園城市。
58. 賴建都(2002)。臺灣設計教育思潮與演進。臺北:龍溪。
59. 嚴平譯、Palmer, R. E.(1992)。詮釋學。台北:桂冠。

1. 姜超、周永燦(2017)。產品設計教學中視覺化設計概要關鍵因素之研究。設計學研究，20(1)，23-43。