進階搜尋


   電子論文尚未授權公開,紙本請查館藏目錄
(※如查詢不到或館藏狀況顯示「閉架不公開」,表示該本論文不在書庫,無法取用。)
系統識別號 U0026-1908202015581800
論文名稱(中文) 生手與專家於設計流程上之設計行為差異研究
論文名稱(英文) A Study on Comparing Design Behavior of Novice and Expert in Design Process
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 工業設計學系
系所名稱(英) Department of Industrial Design
學年度 108
學期 2
出版年 109
研究生(中文) 陳彥婷
研究生(英文) Yan-Ting Chen
學號 P36054161
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 104頁
口試委員 指導教授-陳璽任
口試委員-馬敏元
口試委員-何俊亨
口試委員-黃仲菁
口試委員-楊佳翰
中文關鍵字 設計流程  設計行為  專家  生手  口語分析 
英文關鍵字 design process  design behavior  expert  novice  protocol analysis 
學科別分類
中文摘要 設計,在許多產業中的重要性都在逐漸增長。其中,設計流程在一定程度上也可能主導著最後的設計成果。在執行設計流程時,專家設計師與生手設計師的工作方式以及設計行為有明顯的不同。為了可以更完整地了解兩者在設計流程中實際上的設計行為,本研究將會探討與比較兩者的行為差異。本研究採用放聲思考法獲取資訊以比較執行各個設計階段的執行順序、時間佔比以及出現次數。實驗結果以口語分析法去審視五位專家及五位生手兩者的質性以及量化資料。實驗結果發現生手與專家的設計行為的確存在著差異,因為能力、經驗、思維甚至是自信心的因素,都有可能造成彼此間的不同。大抵而言雖然專家與生手在執行各個設計階段時都呈現了反覆性,但此種反覆性是以不同的方式呈現。專家能夠在設計流程的早期就對設計做清楚的定義,因此他們在後面階段的表現可以比生手更穩定。而生手們在進行到後期的設計時,常跳回前面兩個階段去重新探索或定義,他們對自己的懷疑與信心的缺乏影響了他們在設計流程中的行為。此外,專家習慣於一邊查閱資訊,一邊為問題或解法作定義,當找到一個合理的設計概念且感到滿意,才會進一步開始設計。研究也發現專家比生手可以花更多的時間在「設計階段」上,因為專家可以根據他們本身的經驗與知識更精準地評估問題後執行設計。
透過本研究的實驗結果,生手可以了解在執行5D Model設計流程上與專家的差異為何,可以更詳細地發現自身的困難點加以調整,並參考專家的設計行為,了解專家執行設計時的想法與作法,進而調整、溝通,達到更有效率的溝通與合作,進一步提升該設計師所在團隊或企業的合作力與競爭力。
英文摘要 The importance of design is increasing in many industries. To some extent, the design process could dominate the outcome of the design. It is generally known that expert and novice designers work in different ways and also have various behaviors during the design process. In order to have a better understanding of how they behave during the design process, the objective of this paper is to explore the differences between experts and novices in their behaviors. The study adopted a protocol method to examine the sequence of the design phases and design activities, along with the amount of time spent and the number of occurrences. The results are revealed by protocol analysis with sequence maps and quantitative data. It should be noted that although the paths of experts and novices were both iterative, they were executed in different ways. The experts are able to make definitions earlier than the novices and having stable performances afterward. The novices tend to return to early phases all the time because they lack the confidence that experts have. The doubt of themselves influences the behaviors of the novices. Additionally, experts could spend more time on the Design phase than novices because they can evaluate the problems more precisely based on their experience and knowledge. The outcomes of this paper provide new insights for not only designers themselves but also educators and team managers of companies.
論文目次 摘要 ii
SUMMARY iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Research Background and Motivation 1
1.2 Research Objective 2
1.3 Research Question 3
1.4 Research Limitation 3
1.5 Research Structure 3
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 4
2.1 Understanding of the Design Process 4
2.1.1 The Role of the Design Process 4
2.1.2 The Development of the Design Process 4
2.1.3 Summary 8
2.2 Expert and Novice Designers 8
2.2.1 Definition of Expert and Novice 8
2.2.2 Difference Between Expert and Novice 9
2.2.3 Summary 10
2.3 Discussion of the Research Method 10
2.3.1 Summary 11
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 12
3.1 Research Procedure 12
3.2 Participant Recruitment 12
3.3 Experiment Design 12
3.3.1 Experiment Procedure 12
3.3.2 Experimental Tools 13
3.3.3 Experiment Content 14
3.3.4 Data Analysis 14
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 16
4.1 Sequence of Phases in the Design Process 17
4.2 Occurrences and Time Spent of Phases in the Design Process 19
4.3 Design Behaviors in Each Phase 22
4.3.1 Sequence of Activities in Phases 22
4.3.2 Occurrences and Time Spent of Activities in Phases 26
4.4 Summary 33
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 38
5.1 The Differences of Sequence 38
5.2 The Differences of Time Investment and Continuity 41
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION 43
6.1 Conclusion and Contribution 43
6.2 Recommendations for Future Study 44
Appendix A TRADITIONAL CHINESE VERSION 51
摘要 52
誌謝 53
目錄 54
表目錄 56
圖目錄 57
第1章 緒論 58
1.1 研究背景與動機 58
1.2 研究目的 59
1.3 研究問題 60
1.4 研究範圍與限制 60
1.5 研究流程與架構 60
第2章 文獻探討 61
2.1 設計流程之探討 61
2.1.1 設計流程的角色 61
2.1.2 設計流程之發展 61
2.1.3 小結 65
2.2 生手與專家之探討 65
2.2.1 生手與專家的定義 65
2.2.2 生手與專家的差異 66
2.2.3 小結 67
2.3 研究方法之探討 67
2.3.1 小結 68
第3章 研究方法 69
3.1 研究步驟 69
3.2 受測者篩選 69
3.3 實驗設計 69
3.3.1 實驗步驟 69
3.3.2 實驗內容 70
3.3.3 實驗器材 71
3.3.4 口語分析法 72
第4章 研究結果 73
4.1 各階段的順序 74
4.2 各階段的出現次數與時間長度 76
4.3 各階段中的設計行為 78
4.3.1 各階段中設計活動的順序 79
4.3.2 各階段中設計活動的出現次數與時間長度 82
4.4 小結 88
第5章 討論 93
5.1 執行順序性的差異 93
5.2 投入程度與持續性的差異 95
第6章 結論 97
6.1 結論與貢獻 97
6.2 後續研究建議 98
參考文獻 100
參考文獻 陳慧霞和游萬來(2006). 平面設計過程中使用傳統工具與電腦工具的草圖行為研究. 設計學報,11(4),113-135。doi: 10.6381/JD.200612.0113 [Chen, H. H., & You, M. L. (2006). Comparison of Sketching Activities with Traditional and Digital Tools in Graphic Design. Journal of Design, 11(4), 113-135. doi: 10.6381/JD.200612.0113]
Ahmed, S., Wallace, K. M., & Blessing, L. T. (2003). Understanding the differences between how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks. Research in Engineering Design, 14(1), 1-11. doi:10.1007/s00163-002-0023-z
Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering Design Processes: A Comparison of Students and Expert Practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359-379. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00945.x
Ball, L. J., Ormerod, T. C., & Morley, N. J. (2004). Spontaneous analogising in engineering design: A comparative analysis of experts and novices. Design Studies, 25(5), 495-508. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2004.05.004
Bender, B., Reinicke, T., Wünsche, T., & Blessing, L. T. M. (2002). Application of Methods from Social Sciences in Design Research. In Marjanović, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Design Conference DESIGN 2002, Cavtat, Dubrovnik, Croatia, May 14-17, 2002. (pp. 7-16). Zagreb: Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture.
Blessing, & Chakrabarti. (2009). DRM, a design research methodology. Dordrecht: Springer.
Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Vermetten, Y. (2005). Information problem solving by experts and novices: Analysis of a complex cognitive skill. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), 487-508. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.005
Browning, T. R. (2018). Building models of product development processes: An integrative approach to managing organizational knowledge. Systems Engineering, 21(1), 70-87. doi:10.1002/sys.21421
Bruce, M., & Bessant, J. R. (2002). Design in business: Strategic innovation through design. Harlow, England: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
Chakrabarti, A., & Blessing, L.T. (2014) Theories and Models of Design: A Summary of Findings. In Chakrabarti, A. & Blessing, L. (Eds.), An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design (pp. 1-45). London: Springer.
Chapman, A. (2006). Design Process and Design Management Tips. Businessballs and Design. Retrieved December, 2019, from http://www.businessballs.com/productdesign.htm
Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices*. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121-152. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2
hi, M. T. H., & Glaser, R. (1980). The measurement of expertise: Analysis of the development of knowledge and skill as a basis for assessing achievement. In E. L. Baker & E. S. Quellmalz (Eds.), Educational testing and evaluation: Design, analysis and policy (pp. 37-47). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Chi, M. T., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (2016). The nature of expertise. London: Routledge.
Wynn, D., & Clarkson, J. (2005). Models of designing. In Clarkson, J. & Eckert, C. (Eds.), Design process improvement a review of current practice. (pp. 34-59). London: Springer.
Coley, F., Houseman, O., & Roy, R. (2007). An introduction to capturing and understanding the cognitive behaviour of design engineers. Journal of Engineering Design, 18(4), 311-325. doi:10.1080/09544820600963412
Cross, N. (1999). Design Research: A Disciplined Conversation. Design Issues, 15(2), 5. doi:10.2307/1511837
Cross, N. (2001). Design Cognition: Results from Protocol and other Empirical Studies of Design Activity. In Eastman, C. M., McCracken, W. M., & Newstetter, W. C. (Eds.), Design Knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 79-103). Holanda: Elsevier.
Cross, N. (2001). Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline Versus Design Science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49-55. doi:10.1162/074793601750357196
Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427-441. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002
Cross, N. (2008). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design. Chichester, England: John Wiley.
Dorst, K., & Dijkhuis, J. (1995). Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Design Studies, 16(2), 261-274. doi:10.1016/0142-694x(94)00012-3
Dorst, K. (2008). Design research: A revolution-waiting-to-happen. Design Studies, 29(1), 4-11. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2007.12.001
Dubberly, H. (2004). [Beta] How do you design? Dubberly Design Office. Retrieved December, 2018, from http://www.dubberly.com/articles/how-do-you-design.html
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.100.3.363
Gero, J. S., & Neill, T. M. (1998). An approach to the analysis of design protocols. Design Studies, 19(1), 21-61. doi:10.1016/s0142-694x(97)00015-x
Green, S., Southee, D., & Boult, J. (2014). Towards a Design Process Ontology. The Design Journal, 17(4), 515-537. doi:10.2752/175630614x14056185480032
Heller, J. I., & Greeno, J. G. (1979). Information processing analysis of mathematical problem solving. In R. W. Tyler & S. H. White (Eds.), Testing, teaching, and learning: Report of a conference on research on testing. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Institute of Education.
Howard, T., Culley, S., & Dekoninck, E. (2008). Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Design Studies, 29(2), 160-180. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2008.01.001
Jerrard, B., & Husband, J. (1999). Design and Ethnicity: The Failure of West Midlands Clothing Enterprises to Enter the Design Market. The Design Journal, 2(1), 14-23. doi:10.2752/146069299790225289
Kavakli, M., & Gero, J. S. (2002). The structure of concurrent cognitive actions: A case study on novice and expert designers. Design Studies, 23(1), 25-40. doi:10.1016/s0142-694x(01)00021-7
Kim, J., & Ryu, H. (2014). A Design Thinking Rationality Framework: Framing and Solving Design Problems in Early Concept Generation. Human–Computer Interaction, 29(5-6), 516-553. doi:10.1080/07370024.2014.896706
Kotler, P., & Rath, G. A. (1984). Design: A Powerful But Neglected Strategic Tool. Journal of Business Strategy, 5(2), 16-21. doi:10.1108/eb039054
Laing, S., Apperley, M., & Masoodian, M. (2017). Investigating the effects of client imagery on the ideation process of graphic design. Design Studies, 53, 78-98. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2017.08.001
Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Lloyd, P., & Scott, P. (1995). Difference in similarity: Interpreting the architectural design process. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 22(4), 383-406. doi:10.1068/b220383
Love, T. (2000). Philosophy of design: A meta-theoretical structure for design theory. Design Studies, 21(3), 293-313. doi:10.1016/s0142-694x(99)00012-5
Maciver, F. (2016). Reversing the Design-Marketing Hierarchy: Mapping New Roles and Responsibilities in ‘Designer-Led’ New Product Development. The Design Journal, 19(4), 625-646. doi:10.1080/14606925.2016.1176340
Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169. doi:10.1007/bf01405730
Rothwell, N. (1992). Miscellaneous design issues in the ML kit. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science.
Salman, H. S., Laing, R., & Conniff, A. (2014). The impact of computer aided architectural design programs on conceptual design in an educational context. Design Studies, 35(4), 412-439. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2014.02.002
Schön, D. A. (2011). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Simon, H. A., & Barenfeld, M. (1969). Information-processing analysis of perceptual processes in problem solving. Psychological Review, 76(5), 473-483. doi:10.1037/h0028154
Stamm, B. V. (2008). Managing Innovation, Design and Creativity. John Wiley & Sons.
Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design Studies, 18(4), 385-403. doi:10.1016/s0142-694x(97)00008-2
Tang, H., Lee, Y., & Gero, J. (2011). Comparing collaborative co-located and distributed design processes in digital and traditional sketching environments: A protocol study using the function–behaviour–structure coding scheme. Design Studies, 32(1), 1-29. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2010.06.004
Ullman, D. G., Dietterich, T. G., & Stauffer, L. A. (1988). A model of the mechanical design process based on empirical data. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 2(1), 33-52. doi:10.1017/s0890060400000536
Wang, D., & Ilhan, A. O. (2009). Holding Creativity Together: A Sociological Theory of the Design Professions. Design Issues, 25(1), 5-21. doi:10.1162/desi.2009.25.1
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2023-01-01起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2023-01-01起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw