||Learning Effectiveness Evaluation of Lesson Plan on Streamline in Model Design Course
||Department of Industrial Design
研究目的是為設計系學生量身打造的「流線型設計教案」，期望能推廣於各大學設計系之造型設計相關課程。教案內容以Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy(RBT)為基礎做規劃。RBT有六個等級序漸進的要求，首先記憶(LV.1)必須要使學生能記憶起所學，學生要了解(LV.2)所學，還要能應用(LV.3)所學，並且分析(LV.4)所學到的觀念，然後學習評估(LV.5)出好的流線型，最後學生要創造(LV.6)出屬於自己的設計。受測者有分為工業設計系及多媒體與電腦娛樂科學系的學生，兩組受測者都實施前測與後測。第一次教學於工業設計系的學生，將所發現的問題進行改善、調整教案，使之更簡單，容易學習並增加流線型的設計案例幫助學生抓到重點。把修改完的教案做第二次的教學，對象為多媒體與電腦娛樂科學系的學生，並驗證這些調整後的結果。課程結束後讓學生做滿意度的調查，滿意度也以Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy作為題目設計的基礎。
學生前、後測的作品交由三位工業設計系的教授與二位設計師做評分。首先從文獻、書籍中將與流線型相關的詞彙抽取出來，訪談五位專家後得出五個流線型必須具備的評分標準，這五個標準為阻力、光滑的、動態感、速度感、流暢的。評分問卷為7點的李克特量表，評分完畢後進行統計分析驗證。第一次教案實驗p-value > 0.05，經過教案修改後，再次執行實驗。因學生樣本n < 30，並且不符合常態分佈，所以使用了無母數方法的One sample sign test。學生學習結果p-value(0.006363)< 0.05表示整體學生學習效果有顯著改善。第二次教案修改的方向在於降低難度，但不改變學習流線型必要的知識，並且增加學生能跟老師互動的時間，不論是提問題、討論，這樣的過程成為學生可以增加印象和學習動力的關鍵。
The purpose of this study is to tailor a "streamlined design lesson plan" for students of design departments in the hope of promoting it in the design-related courses of various universities. The lesson plan is based on the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (RBT). There are six levels of progressive requirements in RBT. The first is the Remembering (LV. 1); it requires students to remember what they have learned, then Understanding (LV. 2) and being able to Apply (LV. 3) what they have learned, Analyzing (LV. 4) the concepts learned and learning to Evaluate (LV. 5) the good streamlined design. Finally, students should be able to Create (LV. 6) their own design. The subjects came from industrial design departments as well as multimedia and computer entertainment science departments, both of which received a pre-test and post-test. The first teaching was conducted for students in the department of industrial design. The problems found were improved and the lesson plan was adjusted to make it simpler and easier to learn. In addition, cases of streamline design were added to help students grasp the key points. After these adjustments, the revised second lesson plan was given to the students of multimedia and computer entertainment science departments to verify the results attained. At the end of the course, students were asked to do a survey on satisfaction, which was also based on the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Three professors from the industrial design department and two designers were appointed to grade the pre-test and post-test works of the students. First of all, the vocabulary related to streamlining was extracted from the relevant literature and books. After interviewing five experts, five scoring criteria were obtained: drag value, smooth, dynamic, speed and flowing. The questionnaire was based on a 7-point Likert scale with 1 representing…..; statistical analysis was conducted after the scoring. The first lesson plan experiment's p-value > 0.05; after modifying the lesson plan, the experiment was carried out again. Since the number of student samples (n < 30) did not conform to the normal distribution, the one sample sign test of nonparametric methods was adopted. Students' learning results p-value (0.006363) < 0.05 indicated that the overall learning effect of students had significantly improved. The purpose of the second lesson plan was to reduce the difficulty without changing the necessary knowledge of the streamlining, and to increase the time for students to interact with the teacher, whether to ask questions or engage in discussions with the teacher; this process is the key to enhancing students' memory and learning motivation.
In order to explore the overall learning effect of the second lesson plan, this study selected five students with the highest scores in the post-test evaluated by the five experts to build 3D models. Their scores in the post-test were 25, 16, 29, 29 and 34, with a full score of 35. Ten models were built for the pre-test and post-test, combined with SolidWorks software computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to analyze the air resistance and wind drag coefficient of the streamline. After CFD, the wind drag coefficients of the students' post-test works were 0.15, 0.20 and 0.19 (the lowest drag is 0 and the highest drag is 1). The post-test results of the three students tended to be 0, belonging to the streamline of low drag. The drag coefficients of the other two students were 0.31 and 0.46, which were relatively mediocre.
After dual verification, students progressed through the lesson plan designed by this study, not only in the streamline design, but also in the function.
Finally, the satisfaction questionnaire designed with RBT was discussed. The satisfaction questionnaire was designed as a 5-point Likert scale. There was no "very dissatisfied" response received in this questionnaire. The statistical percentage of students who responded "very satisfied" was 53% in Remembering (LV. 1), 50% in Understanding (LV. 2), 44% in Application (LV. 3), 46% in Analysis (LV. 4), 33% in Evaluation (LV. 5) and 29% in Creation (LV. 6). From Remembering (LV. 1) to Analysis (LV. 4), most responded "very satisfied", and the level receiving most "very satisfied" was remembering (53%). Through the research and analysis, we could know that the former level affected the later one, so if the Application (LV. 3) of the lesson plan could be further strengthened, the learning satisfaction of the latter three levels (LV. 4 to LV. 6) would be improved accordingly. In other words, the learning satisfaction of the self-designed lesson plan in the six levels, after the feedback of students, showed a high degree of satisfaction, of which the contents, test papers and questionnaires in this study are expected to be used as reference materials for teachers in the future.
Table of Contents vii
List of Tables x
List of Figures xi
Chapter I Introduction 1
1.1 Research Background and Motivation 1
1.2 Research Objective 4
1.3 Research Subject 5
1.4 Research Limitations 5
1.5 Description of the Research Framework 5
Chapter II Literature Review 8
2.1 Instructional Design 8
2.1.1 Bloom's Taxonomy 9
2.1.2 Learning Satisfaction 11
2.2 Natural Biological Forms 12
2.2.1 Teleology 13
2.2.2 Streamline of Creatures 14
2.3 Streamline Shape and Design 17
2.3.1 Streamline Design 18
2.3.2 Aerodynamic Streamline 19
2.4 Discussion on Streamline Design 23
2.4.1 SAE Supermileage Competition 23
2.4.2 Aircraft 25
Chapter III Research Methods 29
3.1 Instructional design 29
3.1.1 Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy(RBT) 29
3.1.2 Learning Satisfaction Questionnaire 30
3.2 Survey Method 31
3.3 Likert Scale 33
3.4 Statistical Methods 34
3.4.1 Randomized Complete Block design (RCBD) 34
3.4.2 One sample sign test 37
3.4.3 Aerodynamics 38
Chapter IV Research Procedures 40
4.1 Define the Conditions for Streamlining 42
4.2 The First Lesson Plan 42
4.2.1 Content of the Course 44
4.2.2 RCBD Statistical Results 50
4.2.3 Problems Encountered in the First Lesson Plan 51
4.3 The Second Lesson Plan 56
4.3.1 One sample sign test 62
4.3.2 CFD Analysis 64
4.4 Learning Satisfaction Survey 71
4.4.1 Question Design of the Learning Satisfaction Survey71
4.4.2 Expert Suggestions and Modifications 72
4.4.3 Analysis Diagram 77
Chapter V Results and Suggestions 83
5.1 Results 83
5.2 Suggestions 85
Appendix 1 89
Appendix 2 91
Appendix 3 93
Appendix 4 96
Appendix 5 99
Appendix 6 105
Appendix 7 106
Appendix 8 107
Appendix 9 111
Appendix 10 114
Appendix 11 115
Ayyoobi, F., Pourshafei, H., & Asgari, A. (2016). Codification and Validation of Professional Development Questionnaire of Teachers. International Education Studies, 9(4), 215-224.
Baldissera, P., & Delprete, C. (2016). External and internal CFD analysis of a high-speed human powered vehicle. Int J Mech Control, 17(2), 27.
Bayraktar, I., & Bayraktar, T. (2006).Guidelines for cfd simulations of ground vehicle aerodynamics (No. 2006-01-3544). SAE Technical Paper.
Blevins, R. D. (1984). Applied fluid dynamics handbook. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1984, p. 568.
Brunswik, E., & Kamiya, J. (1953). Ecological cue-validity of'proximity'and of other Gestalt factors. The American journal of psychology, 66(1), 20-32.
CAI, M.-r., & CUI, T.-j. (2016). Application of Smooth Surface in Vehicle Design. DEStech Transactions on Materials Science and Engineering(ammme).
Chang, I.-Y., & Chang, W.-Y. (2012). The effect of student learning motivation on learning satisfaction. International Journal of Organizational Innovation (Online), 4(3), 281.
Churches, A. (2008). Bloom's taxonomy blooms digitally. Tech & Learning, 1, 1-6.
Cogdell, C. (2003). Products or bodies? Streamline design and eugenics as applied biology. Design Issues, 19(1), 36-53.
Daniel, W. W. (1978). Applied nonparametric statistics: Houghton Mifflin.
Davis, G. (2015). What is the role for collegiate design competitions in a multi-discipline, diverse world? Paper presented at the 2015 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON).
Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International journal of market research, 50(1), 61-104.
Ding, S.-S., Li, Q., Tian, A.-Q., Du, J., & Liu, J.-L. (2016). Aerodynamic design on high-speed trains. Acta Mechanica Sinica, 32(2), 215-232.
Down, B. (2010). Art Deco and British Car Design: The Airline Cars of the 1930s. In: Poundbury: Veloce Publishing.
Dumond, P. (2017). A COURSE BASED APPROACH TO RECOGNIZING STUDENT EFFORTS IN ENGINEERING DESIGN COMPETITIONS. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA).
Feldkamp, S. D. (1987). Swimming in the California sea lion: morphometrics, drag and energetics. Journal of Experimental Biology, 131(1), 117-135.
Fish, F. E. (2006). The myth and reality of Gray's paradox: implication of dolphin drag reduction for technology. Bioinspiration & biomimetics, 1(2), R17.
Forehand, M. (2010). Bloom’s taxonomy. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology, 41(4), 47-56.
Gagnon, L., Richard, M., Beardsell, G., & Boudreau, M. (2012). The Process of Making an Aerodynamically Efficient Car Body for the SAE Supermileage Competition (No. 2012-01-0176). SAE Technical Paper.
Gould, S. J. (1971). D'Arcy Thompson and the science of form. New Literary History, 2(2), 229-258.
Hanawalt, E., & Rouse, W. B. (2007). CAR WARS.
Hardin, J. M. (2006). 2006-1983: VERTICAL-INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR CAPSTONE DESIGN PROJECTS (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Military Institute).
Hucho, W., & Sovran, G. (1993). Aerodynamics of road vehicles. Annual review of fluid mechanics, 25(1), 485-537.
Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. K. (2015). Likert scale: Explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396.
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., & Hong, H.-Y. (2015). Design thinking and education. In Design thinking for education (pp. 1-15): Springer.
Le Good, G., Johnson, C., Clough, B., & Lewis, R. (2011). The aesthetics of low drag vehicles. SAE International Journal of Engines, 4(2), 2638-2658.
Liamadis, G. D. (2001). Role of Glass in Automotive Design Synthesis: Functional and Aesthetic Aspects. glassfiles. com, http://www. glassfiles. com/library/article—print. php.
Librera, W., Eyck, R., Doolan, J., Brady, J., & Aviss-Spedding, E. (2004). New Jersey professional standards for teachers and school leaders. Professional Standards for Teachers and School Leaders Initiative, Erişim: http://www. state. nj. us/education/profdev/profstand/Erişim Tarihi, 4, 2016.
Loewy, R. (1979). Industrie-Design Raymond Loewy. New York.
Lovvorn, J., Liggins, G. A., Borstad, M. H., Calisal, S. M., & Mikkelsen, J. (2001). Hydrodynamic drag of diving birds: effects of body size, body shape and feathers at steady speeds. Journal of Experimental Biology, 204(9), 1547-1557.
Macey, S., & Wardle, G. (2009). H-Point: the fundamentals of car design & packaging: Art Center College of Design.
Maeda, J. (2006). The laws of simplicity: MIT press.
Maffei, N. P. (2000). Designing the Image of the Practical Visionary: Norman Bel Geddes. The Royal College of Art,
Maybury, W. J. (2000). The aerodynamics of bird bodies. University of Bristol,
Naware, A. (2018). STUDY OF CONSTRUCTION AND WORKING OF HOVER BIKE.
Meldrum, J. S., Reynolds, K. L., & Keith, J. M. (2006). Enhancement of Engineering Education through University Competition-Based Events (No. 2006-32-0049). SAE Technical Paper.
Muratoglu, A., & Muratoglu, A. (2017). Understanding hydrodynamics of Tuna Fish hydrofoil using CFD simulations. In 7th Ankara International Aerospace Conference (AIAC’2017), Ankara.
Paechter, M., Maier, B., & Macher, D. (2010). Students’ expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Computers & education, 54(1), 222-229.
Pennycuick, C., Klaassen, M., Kvist, A., & Lindström, Å. (1996). Wingbeat frequency and the body drag anomaly: wind-tunnel observations on a thrush nightingale (Luscinia luscinia) and a teal (Anas crecca). Journal of Experimental Biology, 199(12), 2757-2765.
Ponitz, B., Schmitz, A., Fischer, D., Bleckmann, H., & Brücker, C. (2014). Diving-flight aerodynamics of a peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). PLoS One, 9(2).
Pu, X., Li, G., & Liu, Y. (2016). Progress and perspective of studies on biomimetic shark skin drag reduction. ChemBioEng Reviews, 3(1), 26-40.
Pye, D., & Pye, D. (1968). The nature and art of workmanship (Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rajashekara, K., Wang, Q., & Matsuse, K. (2016). Flying cars: Challenges and propulsion strategies. IEEE Electrification Magazine, 4(1), 46-57.
Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional design. Educational technology research and development, 41(1), 79-91.
Shailaj, R. R., & Swale, S. Drape as an alternative teaching and learning process in fashion design.
Shuanbao, Y., Dilong, G., Zhenxu, S., Guowei, Y., & Dawei, C. (2014). Optimization design for aerodynamic elements of high speed trains. Computers & Fluids, 95, 56-73.
Slavin, R. E., & Davis, N. (2006). Educational psychology: Theory and practice.(2006). View Link.
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1993). Designing instructional feedback for different learning outcomes. Interactive instruction and feedback, 75-103.
Sun, W., & Sun, P. (2008). Post-Expressionism style in modern car design. Paper presented at the 2008 9th International Conference on Computer-Aided Industrial Design and Conceptual Design.
Tzeng, T. W., Cai, D., & Huang, L. L. (2009). Curriculum for Training Professional Industrial Designer.
Vagias, W. M. (2006). Likert-type scale response anchors. Clemson International Institute for Tourism & Research Development, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management. Clemson University.
Walker, J. A. (1997). Ecological morphology of lacustrine threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus L.(Gasterosteidae) body shape. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 61(1), 3-50.
Weaver, M. R. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379-394.
Williams, C. (2013). Origins of Form: The Shape of Natural and Man-made Things—Why They Came to Be the Way They Are and How They Change. Architectural Book Publishing.