台灣大學院校室內設計教育課程指標權重研究

本研究之目的是研究台灣大學學校室內設計系室內設計之核心課程之課程評估因子之因素權重計算結果，提出室內設計課程的課程指標權重之建議，作為台灣大學院校室內設計科系課程編排之參考，有助於專業室內設計人才之培養，進而提升台灣「軟實力」之設計競爭力。第一階段透過焦點團體法，以9位室內設計專家來做指標適合度篩選並界定研究問題，為構面與評估準則之選定，研究共篩選出動線分配、環境控制、空間心理、安全防護、空間機能、空間設計、工程管理、專業技術、材質科技、材料與施工及居家環境等11大項及33小項作為第二階段專家問卷評估之因素項目。第二階段採用專家問卷調查法，是以層級程序分析法（Analytic Hierarchy Process，簡稱A.H.P.法）的AHP「成對比較評估」製作專家問卷，來衡量評估準則間相對權重採用因素分析法來建構指標層級，調查對象分為業界（室內設計業界專家們）、學術界（室內設計系任教之學者專家）兩類，共發放30份專家問卷進行室內設計課程評估因子之權重調查。本研究的30位專家之權重計算結果，可歸納出實務類課程（權重值0.5548）比理論類課程（權重值0.4452）重要的結果，而11項評估大項的權重重要性排序分別為動線分配、環境控制及空間心理三者的權重值為最高，其次為安全防護、空間機能、空間設計、工程管理與專業技術，而以材質科技、材料與施工及居家環境三者的權重值為最低。本研究之結果已經將室內設計課程中重要的評估因子篩選出來，希冀能作為台灣大學院校室內設計科系課程編排之參考，也提供給室內設計學界、業界從業人員參考。

關鍵字

室內設計；課程指標權重；層級程序分析法

並列摘要

The purpose of this research is to study the calculation results of the factor weights of the core courses evaluation factors in the Department of Interior Design of Taiwan universities. The suggestion on the weights of courses in interior design is put forward as a reference for the curriculum arrangement of the Interior Design Department of Taiwan universities, which will help the training of professional interior design talents, and thus enhance the design competitiveness of Taiwan's ＂soft power＂. The first stage used focus group method by nine experts who filtered eleven major items and thirty-three small items of professional ability indicators for interior design education. This study uses method of expert questionnaire in second stage. It's to select dimensions and assessment criteria in second stage, using factor analysis to construct indicators of level. This study used the AHP「paired comparison evaluation」expert questionnaire which is made by method of analytic hierarchy process to measure the relative weight between evaluation criteria in second stage. Survey objects are classified into two groups which are industry (expert of interior designers) and academics (scholars teach interior design experts). It's expected to release 30 copies of the expert questionnaires. The calculated results of weight value by 30 experts of the study can be summarized practice Courses (weight value 0.5548) than the theoretical courses (weight value 0.4452), and 11 to ordering importance of the evaluate factors were moving line distribution, environmental control and power among the heavy psychological space is the highest, followed by security, space function, space design, project management and technical expertise, and to material science and technology, materials and construction, and the right to re-value the home environment of the three lowest. The results of this study have important interior design course evaluation factors filtered out, hope can be used as the basis of interior design department curriculum revision colleges Taiwan University, available to be references of interior design academia and industry employees.

並列關鍵字

Interior Design ； Weights of Courses ； Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP)

參考文獻

Wild, P. (2019), Interior design identity as practiced [Doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology], https://doi.org/10.5204/thesis.eprints.130739.

Beecher, M. A. (2006), Designing Criticism Integrating Written Criticism in Interior Design Education, Journal of Interior Design, 31(3), 54-61.

Google Scholar

Bisoux, T. (2003). New directions in global education. Biz Education, 2, 34-39. https://bized.aacsb.edu/articles/2003/january/new-directions-in-global-education

Google Scholar

Despot, K., Sandeva, V., & Vasilev, M. (2019, October 25-26), Specific opportunities for visualization a reason for modern interior design education [Conference session]. International Conference On Virtual Learning, Romania. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336891182

Google Scholar

Marshall-Baker, A. (2005), Knowledge in Interior Design. Journal of Interior Design 31(1), XIII-XXI.

Google Scholar

國際替代計量

台灣大學院校室內設計教育課程指標權重研究

全文下載

主題瀏覽