兒童對小心夾手安全標誌設計認知與創作之研究

A Study on Children's Cognition and Creation of Safety Symbol Design

10.29465/IJDMD.201912_11(2).0004

張美春(Mei-Chun Chang)

安全標誌 ； 兒童繪畫 ； 圖形認知 ； 圖形表徵 ； 繪畫投射技術 ； Safety Signs ； Children's drawing ； Pictographs Recognition ； Graphic Representation ； Projective Techniques

國際數位媒體設計學刊

11卷2期（2019 / 12 / 01）

47 - 58

繁體中文

本研究目的以兒童運用繪畫來設計安全標誌之結果，來作為日後安全教育的參考，研究以問卷繪畫調查法，針對89位國小7至9歲兒童進行調查。主題為台北捷運車門張貼的「小心夾手」安全標誌，步驟有二，一為兒童對安全標誌的設計表現，請兒童在畫紙上畫出具有「小心夾手」的圖形；二為安全標誌的訪談，針對圖像造形的意義進行訪談，最後根據以上調查的圖像結果，進行分類與分析。結果發現：（1）整體7至9歲兒童對繪畫主題分為「門縫夾手」與「手被夾到」，兒童們傾向以「門縫夾手」表達最高（53.0%），以「手被夾到」次之（47.0%）；（2）不同的年齡的選擇，7歲兒童以「門縫夾手」（56.0%）為主，8歲兒童以「門縫夾手」圖像（71.0%）為主，9歲兒童則以「手被夾到」（64.0%）為主；（3）就年齡的比較，9歲兒童對8歲兒童有明顯的差異（p=.038＊），7歲和9歲兒童表達上較為接近，8歲兒童表現比較集中；（4）就表徵的圖形觀察，年齡低的兒童傾向簡單、象徵性，年齡較高的兒童傾向複雜、情境的表現；（5）就圖形的表徵，兒童在意的是「人物哭泣」與「手被夾到的疼痛」。期望此研究結果，能提供教學者融入課程，協助兒童從小來認識環境的危險處，讓安全圖像達到有效的警告功能。

The purpose of this study was to use the results of children's design recognition of safety signs, with drawings used as reference for future safety education. This study surveyed 89 pupils aged between 7 and 9 through a questionnaire survey. The theme was the safety sign of ＂mind your hands＂, as posted on the doors of Taipei Metro. There were two steps. (1) Children's design of the safety sign: children were asked to draw the figures of ＂mind your hands＂; (2) interviews regarding the safety sign: the children were interviewed about the meanings of the pictures. In the end, classification and analysis were made based on the results of the above survey. The results show that: (1) the drawing themes of all children were divided into ＂Watch Out for Door Pinches＂ and ＂mind your hands＂; 8-year-old children mainly drew the pictures of ＂Watch Out for Door Pinches＂ (71.0%), 9-year-old children mainly drew the pictures of ＂mind your hands＂ (64.0%), and 7-year-old children mainly drew the pictures of ＂Watch Out for Door Pinches＂ (56.0%); (2) in terms of themes, children tended to choose ＂Watch Out for Door Pinches＂ (53.0%), while ＂mind your hands＂ took second place (47.0%); (3) in terms of ages, there were obvious differences (P=0.038*) between 9-year-old children and 8-year-old children, 7-year-old children and 9-year-old children were similar in expression, and 8-year-old children had concentrated performance; (4) in terms of picture representation, younger children tended to choose simple and symbolic representation, while older children tended to choose complicated and contextual representation; (5) in terms of the graphic representation of ＂mind your hands＂, the children were concerned that ＂the character was crying＂ and ＂the hand got pinched＂. This study expects that the results can be used as reference for the design of safety signs by designers and teachers. Moreover, it is suggested that the results are included in teaching content, in a bid to help children recognize environmental dangers and give full play to the warning role of safety pictograms.

1. 林品章,羅凱,楊小青(2012)。商品包裝上警告圖像之改良設計。設計學報，17(2)
   連結：
2. 童秋霞,謝宜伶(2011)。學齡前兒童之森林意象─以中部地區兒童爲例。鄉村旅遊研究，5(1)，53-74。
   連結：
3. 台北市政府主計處。(2019 年 10 月 15 日瀏覽)。取自 https://dbas.gov.taipei/Default.aspx
4. 台北捷運工程局 (2019)。標誌基本要素(2019 年11月9日瀏覽)。取自https://www.dorts.gov.taipei/cp.aspx?n=C57DC08F3928742E
5. Barraza, L.(1999).Children's drawings about the environment.Environmental Education Research,5(1),49-66.
6. Bukowiecki, E. M.,McMackin, M. C.(1999).Young Children and Narrative Texts: A School-Based Inquiry Project.Reading Improvement,36(4),157.
7. DeLoache, J. S.(1991).Symbolic functioning in very young children: Understanding of pictures and models.Child development,62(4),736-752.
8. Engel, J.,Odermatt, E.,Engel, A.,Madri, J. A.,Furthmayr, H.,Rohde, H.,Timpl, R.(1981).Shapes, domain organizations and flexibility of laminin and fibronectin, two multifunctional proteins of the extracellular matrix.Journal of molecular biology,150(1),97-120.
9. Goria, S.,Papadopoulou, M.(2012).Icons versus symbols: investigating preschoolers' cartographic design.Journal for Theoretical Cartography
10. Kalsher, M. J.,Brantley, K. A.,Wogalter, M. S.,Snow-Wolff, J.(2000).Evaluating Choking Child Pictorial Symbols.Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings
11. Kindler, A. M.,Darras, B.(1998).Culture and development of pictorial repertoires.Studies in Art Education,39(2),147-167.
12. Laughery, K. R.(2006).Safety communications: warnings.Applied ergonomics,37(4),467-478.
13. Laughery, K. R.,Wogalter, M. S.(2008).On the symbiotic relationship between warnings research and forensics.Human factors,50(3),529-533.
14. Looman, W. S.(2006).A developmental approach to understanding drawings and narratives from children displaced by Hurricane Katrina.Journal of Pediatric Health Care,20(3),158-166.
15. Malchiodi, C. A.(1998).Understanding children's drawings.Guilford Press.
16. Marcus, A.(1992).Graphic design for electronic documents and user interfaces.
17. Neff, E. J.,Beardslee, C. I.(1990).Body knowledge and concerns of children with cancer as compared with the knowledge and concerns of other children.J Pediatr Nurs,5,179-189.
18. Papalia, D. E.,Olds, S. W.,Feldman, R. D.(1990).A child's world: Infancy through adolescence.McGraw-Hill.
19. Pelander, T.,Lehtonen, K.,Leino-Kilpi, H.(2007).Children in the hospital: elements of quality in drawings.Journal of Pediatric Nursing,22(4),333-341.
20. Rice Berg, V. J.,Lueder, R.(2008).Designing products for children. Ergonomics for Children: Designing Products and Places for Toddlers to Teens.London:Taylor and Francis.
21. Seideman, R. Y.,Hutchison, B.,Buckner, S. K.,Myers, S. T.,Miller-Boyle, D.,MacRobert, M.,Heath, S.(1998).The response of children to disaster.MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs,23(1),37-44.
22. Smith, A. C.(2009).Symbols for children's tangible programming cubes: an explorative study.Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Conference of the Southern African Computer Lecturers' Association
23. Trollvik, Anne,Nordbach, Reidun,Silén, Charlotte,Ringsberg, Karin C.(2011).Children's Experiences of Living With Asthma: Fear of Exacerbations and Being Ostracized.Journal of Pediatric Nursing,26(4),295-303.
24. Vukelich, M.,Whitaker, L. A.(1993).The effects of context on the comprehension of graphic symbols.Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting,37(8),511-515.
25. Vygotsky, L. S.(1986).Thought and language.
26. Waterson, P.,Pilcher, C.,Evans, S.,Moore, J.(2012).Developing safety signs for children on board trains.Applied ergonomics,43(1),254-265.
27. Wesson, M.,Salmon, K.(2001).Drawing and showing: Helping children to report emotionally laden events.Applied Cognitive Psychology,15(3),301-319.
28. Wickens, C. D.(1992).Engineering Psychology and Human Performance.New York:HarperCillins.
29. Wogalter, M. S.,Conzola, V. C.,Smith-Jackson, T. L.(2002).Research-based guidelines for warning design and evaluation.Applied ergonomics,33(3),219-230.
30. Young, S. L.,Wogalter, M. S.(1990).Comprehension and memory of instruction manual warnings: Conspicuous print and pictorial icons.Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,32(6),637-649.
31. 王安祥,林暉順,陳明德(2002)。禁止型交通標誌設計對於駕駛人主觀偏好及在不同行車速度下視覺績效的影響。工業工程學刊，19(6)，105-115。
32. 林美玲(2006)。國立雲林科技大學。
33. 張美春(2014)。雲林科技大學。
34. 張美春,林芳穗,劉雪芬(2011)。學齡前兒童對警告圖像表現之研究。科技學刊人文社會類，20(1)，17-26。
35. 張悟非(1992)。從認知心裡的觀點來探討視覺資訊設計的方向。明志工專學報，24，2-11。
36. 郭慧芬(2014)。國立臺中教育大學幼兒教育學系。
37. 陳思帆(2011)。國立臺灣師範大學設計研究所。
38. 陳格理(1997)。圖書館的標示系統。台北市立圖書館館訊，15(2)，13-13。
39. 陸雅青(1992).藝術治療.心理.
40. 黃台生,馮正民(1992)。,中華民國內政部建築研究所。
41. 楊穎枝(1994)。逢甲大學建築及都市計畫研究所。
42. 葉志逸(2015)。國立交通大學運輸與物流管理學系。
43. 劉純如(2001)。東海大學建築學系。
44. 劉雪芬(2016)。雲林科技大學。
45. 蕭春金(1999)。國立臺灣科技大學工程技術研究所設計學程。
46. 錢真珠(2011)。樹德科技大學應用設計研究所。