模擬建築情境中思考風格對設計過程與作品之影響

Abstract

電腦模擬將真實的世界的現象於電腦上重新展現。在電腦模擬平台上，使用者可自由操作各種控制因素並觀察模擬結果，並可不斷重複模擬過程，經由模擬環境所給予的回饋進行修正及學習等活動。本研究將探討模擬建築情境的平台上設計桁架橋樑的歷程中，設計者的思考風格與設計策略行為偏好、模擬平台中的設計工具運用偏好及設計成品成效之間的相關性。 本研究以便利取樣的方式，針對新竹縣某高中一年級學生抽取121個樣本進行研究，並以思考風格量表測定其思考風格傾向，並以WPBD2007橋樑設計實作的實驗環境施測，觀察其側錄檔並量化其設計策略行為及使用設計工具偏好。經過觀察及篩選，有效樣本共計101個，並以此有效樣本進行後續的數據分析。 研究結果發現：(1)司法型思考風格與「大幅改變結構及變更設計目標」設計行為出現次數達顯著正相關，與「Top-Down設計行為」出現次數雖未達顯著相關，但與其他思考風格相關值相較之下仍有一定程度的相關性。(2)局部思考風格平均得分與「右側組件列表」使用次數呈現顯著負相關。(3)「Top-Down設計行為」次數與「使用中央圖型設計界面搭配參考右側組件列表」次數有顯著負相關，「Bottom-Up設計行為」次數與「使用中央圖型設計界面搭配參考右側組件列表」次數有顯著正相關，「大幅改變結構與設計目標」次數與「使用中央圖型設計界面」次數有顯著正相關，與「使用中央圖型設計界面搭配參考右側組件列表」次數有顯著負相關。(4)「大幅改變結構與設計目標」次數則與設計成品總花費呈現顯著正相關。「使用右側組件列表」次數與設計成品總花費呈現顯著正相關。

Computer simulation shows real world phenomenon in computers. In the computer simulation platform, the users can freely control the operation of various factors and observed simulation results, repeat the simulation process, amend and learn via the feedback from simulation environment. This study will explore the correlation between the thinking style preferences, design strategy, design tools preferences and design products cost of designers in the process of designing a truss bridge in construction simulation.

In this study, we collect 121 samples form high school students in Hsinchu County for research by convenience sampling, and use thinking style scale measured the tendency of their thinking style. We choose WPBD2007 ( a freeware of computer simulation software for truss bridge design ) be our experimental environment, observe the video recorded file and quantify the behavior of design strategy and preferences to use design tools. After observation and screening, we pick up a total of 101 valid samples for follow-up data analysis.

The results showed that: (1) The "judicial" thinking style is associated with "substantially change the structure and change the design goals" behavior number of design strategy. The judicial thinking style and "Top-Down" behavior number of design strategy did not appear significant association, but still be a certain degree of correlation rather then other thinking style of function. (2) The "local" thinking style and the "using member list tool" behavior number have significant negative correlation. (3) "Top-Down" behavior number of design strategy and "using the graphical design interface and member list tool" number have significant negative correlation, "Bottom-Up" behavior number of design strategy and "using the graphical interface design and member list tool" number have significant positive correlation, "substantially change the structure and change the design goals" number and " using the graphical design interface and member list tool" tnumber have significant positive correlation, "substantially change the structure and change the design goals" number and "using the graphical design interface and member list tool" number have significant negative correlation. (4) "Substantially change the structure and change the design goals" number and " the number of total product cost” and have a significant positive correlation. "Using the member list tool" number and "the number of total product cost" have a significant positive correlation.