設計系學生之學習風格與設計思考之關係

The Relationship Between the Learning Styles of Design Students and Their Design Thinking

蘇靜宣(Ching-Hsuan Su)

指導教授 ： 曹永慶 ； 葉雯玓

大同大學/設計學院/工業設計學系所/碩士(2006年)

摘要

本研究之目的為探討不同學習風格類型的設計科系學生，在解決設計任務時所運用的思考方式。研究中首先利用Kolb學習風格量表將受測學生區分為同化型、分散型、聚斂型、調適型等四種學習風格。接著依據Kolb所提出的學習循環理論規劃出蒐集資料任務、設計繪圖任務一、立體草模製作任務、設計繪圖任務二之四個實驗階段，並以釘書機之設計為任務，讓學生依序進行各階段之實驗。研究中分別分析四種學習風類型受測學生在不同階段的思考過程與想法，並且比較在設計繪圖任務一、二的設計思考模式。

主要研究結果依實驗階段整理如下：
一、蒐集資料任務中：所有學習風格類型學生在蒐集資料時都會使用的方法為快速、便利的「網路」。
二、設計繪圖任務一：所有學習風格類型學生在構想展開時會考慮關於「思考」、「觀察」的思考過程。其中同化型學生與其他三組相較，較少使用到「經驗」、「實作」的方式進行設計構想發展。分散型學生與其他三組相較，較常利用「經驗」與「觀察」的思考過程進行設計構想。聚斂型學生會利用各種區段種類進行設計構想展開，在想法上無法比較出特別的差異。調適型學生與其他三組相較，較常利用「經驗」的思考過程進行構想發展。
三、立體草模製作任務：所有學習風格類型學生大多會以設計繪圖任務一時的設計構想進行修改來製作草模，大多為「思考」、「經驗」的思考過程。
四、設計繪圖任務二：四種學習風格類型中皆有學生進行新的構想案，只有多數的同化型學生選擇發展新設計構想。分散型學生會利用「觀察」而不是「思考」的過程進行構想展開。聚斂型學生只會利用某部分的「過去經驗」進行設計構想發展。調適型學生完全沒有利用「經驗」進行設計構想展開。
五、兩階段設計繪圖任務之思考過程比較：同化型學生在設計繪圖任務二比起設計繪圖任務一的設計思考過程增加了「觀察」與「實作」之間的過程。分散型學生在設計繪圖任務二之設計思考過程當中，幾乎不再考慮到關於「實際經驗」的部分。聚斂型學生在設計繪圖任務二之設計思考過程則減少了「經驗」與「觀察」、「經驗」與「實作」的過程。調適型學生在設計繪圖任務二中，已經完全沒有運用到個人的「實際經驗」進行設計構想。

關鍵字

設計思考 ； Kolb學習風格量表 ； 學習風格 ； 設計過程

並列摘要

The purpose of this study is to research when the design students with different learning styles facing to design missions, what thinking methods they use. First, researchers use Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory to divide students into 4 kinds of learning style: Assimilating, Diverging, Coverging, Accommodating. Then, according to Kolb’s learning cycle theory, scheme 4 periods of experiments, including data collecting mission, design sketch mission 1, modeling mission, design sketch mission 2, and take a stapler as the experiment product, and ask students to carry all experiments out step by step. Finally, specifically analyze the thinking process and thought of 4 kinds learning styles students in different periods of experiments, and compare the differences of the design thinking modes in design sketch mission 1 & 2.

The main study results were summarized as below:
1. Data collecting mission: it has been found that data collection methods are carried out by all students with the help of rapid and convenient “internet”.
2. Design sketch mission 2: all students think about the same thinking process including “thinking’ & ‘watching” in the idea sketch phase. Assimilating students seldom rely on “feeling” & “doing” in designing idea sketching. Diverging students prefer to “feeling” & “watching” much more frequently than students with other learning styles. Converging students prefer to take any kinds of chunks, so there are no noticeable differences in their thought. Accommodating students prefer to “feeling” much more frequently than students with other learning styles.
3. Modeling mission: students mostly amend their design ideas and produce image models in stage 2: during the image model production process, and they prefer to “thinking” & “feeling”.
4. Design sketch mission 2: there are a little students carrying new ideas out in all types of learning styles, but almost Assimilating students carry new ideas out. Diverging students use “watching” in design idea sketch, not “thinking”. Some Converging students use “feeling”. Accommodating students do not use “feeling” at all.
5. Compare thinking process in design sketch mission 1 & 2: Accommodating students show added “watching” and “doing” relationships as compared to design sketch mission 2 design thinking process. Diverging students do not really take “actual experience” into consideration during mission 4 design thinking process. Converging students take out the “feeling”, “watching”, “feeling” and “doing” processes during the second design sketch mission. Accommodating students do not use individual actual experiences in their design ideas at all, so the “feeling” process is not available.

並列關鍵字

Design thinking ； Kolb's Learning style inventory ； Learning style ； Design process

參考文獻

9. 張景媛，教學類型與學習類型適配性研究暨學生學習適應理論模式的驗證，碩士論文，國立台灣師範大學 教育心裡學系，民77

12. 郭玉婷，泰雅族青少年學習式態之質的研究，碩士論文，國立台灣師範大學　教育研究所，民90

18. Anderson, J. R., Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1981.

23. Cheng, P. C.-H., “Interactive law encoding diagrams for learning and instruction,” Learning and Instruction, Vol.9, No.4, PP.309-326, 1999.

25. Cross, N., “Natural intelligence in design,” Design Studies, Vol.20, PP.25-39, 1999.